The assumption that all atheists have no sense of morality is ludicrous. You don't need to believe in a god to have a sense of right and wrong. Unless your reason for being good is that God will smite your ass, there is really no reason to directly relate theism with morality, and I would consider that reasoning to be highly immoral anyway. Children behave themselves to avoid punishment; adults should be able to find better reasons than that.

Anyway, I'm an ethical pluralist. I believe in good and evil as subjective judgements. By that I mean that something can be good or evil by one's own opinion, but nothing can be good or evil universally. I'm under the persuasion that the universe isn't intelligent and therefore doesn't care about the behaviour of some animals on one of the countless planets inside of it. Therefore, the universe does not judge whether or not something is good or evil. Therefore, nothing is universally good or evil. One can have the opinion that something is good or evil, but this opinion has no universal authority because it is subjective, not objective.

So I do what I believe to be right in whatever situation based on my own personal judgement of the situation. I don't follow any code of law or code of ethics unless I happen to agree with it. If I do find myself in a situation where I disagree with a rule but breaking it will mean punishment, then I probably won't break the rule because I also take into account how that punishment will affect my life. Sometimes life works that way.

I hope this paints you a better picture.

I don't think he said that athiests don't have morals rabbit, he's just asking what they are & why you come to the desision that it is a moral standard for you.

At least this is what I see anyways.

Bolt

Efficient cause,

Your question is a good one. I believe, no matter whether you believe in one god, many gods, or no gods, that to be ethical is a choice. The standard that humanists use is no different than that of theists. It is the complex standard that has evolved through survival instincts and through use of our rationality (ie. something akin to the old social contract theories, as flawed as they are).

There is no grand "one standard." Christians often like to say that they do have one standard, God's standard, when in fact that is rhetoric. I could pick any two Christians on the planet and find that they would disagree on even the most basic ethical dilemmas. When it comes down to it, you can have two theists of the same Christian movement disagreeing while saying that they each are living by "God's standard." What they are really doing is attributing their ethical standard that they have inherited and created to an ontological being. Humanists merely cut out the ontological being.

Yeah I just want to clarify: I'm not saying atheists have no moral sense. I'm asking where an atheist's moral sense comes from, and how it is philosophically justified. Of course I expect the answer to differ from person to person.

efficient cause - your question seems to assume that religion is about morality.  In my opinion, it isn't.   And it isn't about reward for doing good (like going to heaven) or punshment for doing bad (like going to hell).  It is about relationship.  It is about living in God's world, about living with God's people.  It is how we live our lives and about how we treat others. 

Morals?   I'm not sure that word is even important to me.  Ethics - I make ethical decisions every day.  Decisions as seemingly insignificant as to throw a piece of paper in the wastebasket to eventually end up in landfill, or to carry it out to the recycling pile.  Decisions as to where to buy imported vegetables.  Decisions to phone a lonely friend, or send a 'thinking of you' card to someone on the anniversary of their son's death.  Decisions about how to vote in the next election.  Decisions about how I go about my job, or whether I volunteer for a certain cause. These are all ethical decisions that I make every day - and I'm sure others make them too - whether they are religious or not.

What does God require of us?  to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.

I'm quite sure that I make my ethical decisions on the basis of my belief system - but I also think that those who don't have a religion also have a value system that guides them in ethical decisions. 

killer rabbit - I'm just going to call you on one statement in your opening post.  "Children behave themselves in order to avoid punishment."

I think that is a pretty simplistic statement.  Actually, it seems to me that children behave themselves for a variety of reasons.  The main one perhaps is that they want to please their parents or the people closest to them.  Also, perhaps, they are unsure of themselves and so they copy the behaviour of others (parents, older siblings) in order to fit in.  They also quickly learn consequences:  if I want somebody to play with me, I have to be friendly; if I want him to share with me, I have to share with him. 

They are also usually pretty aware of their own powerlessness and volunerability.  Call it humility, if you want.  They may push the limits - go a bit beyond the boundaries of their own back yard - but they usually don't go too far afield for fear of getting lost.  An in strange surroundings they cling even closer to the familiar - parent, caretaker, etc.

It seems to me that children instinctively understand the need for connection, for developing relationship with others and with their surroundings.

efficient_cause and gentle folk,

"The Moral Instinct" by that Canadian-American, Stephen Pinker:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

Anyone want a career as a moralogist,

Inannawhimsey

Efficient cause : "What is the philosophical foundation for your morality? That is to say... why BE good? How do you know what good is? Does good/evil, right/wrong even exist?"

I think of others as extentions of myself, I am you, you are me, we are one. So I treat others as I would want to be treated myself. We are all part of the same whole. I came to this viewpoint through my own philosophical meanderings.

I BE good because that is what I admire in others, it makes me feel good about myself and I hope that others will repect and apreciate me for it.

Yes of coure good/evil exists. A caring hug is good, a child molestation is evil. Right/wrong we hopefully all learn from our parents, and if we don't, hopefully someone else steps in somewhere along the way to teach the poor kid before he becomes a criminal. I think without moral instruction from someone we are fallable to not knowing the difference, and merely acting for survival alone. However, I think that in the case of inflicting pain on others there is a natural repsonce to feel pain one's self. But that would perhaps require some study. A child who has no concept of themself might not be aware of that either.

Efficient Cause: "What is the standard and why?"

I think as a country we have a moral code of right and wrong that most canadians adhere to. I think overall we care about one another, and will offer assistance when needed say if someone is pulled over at the side of the road with their emergency lights on, if someone drops something, or is coming through the door at the same time as you. I think we are a pretty polite and considderate nation. I think Canadians take pride in that. It's nice to be nice. I don't deny that christianity has played it's part in the development of our moral codes, and I am glad for the ones we have.

I do not belong to any religion and don't believe that doing good will get me into any afterlife. I do believe the world is an amazing wonderful place. I also truly believe that people are truly good on the inside, no matter what religion they follow if any. I do good because I know everybody is capable of it and because I want to.

Hi Seeler,

I admit that I did make a generalization there, and children are a lot more complex than that, but I figured that since we're not actually talking about child behaviour that I could get away with the generalization. I wouldn't have used it otherwise.

Efficient Cause,

I know you didn't actually state that atheists can't have morals, but I thought that it would be best to argue against that position anyway, just in case. And then I did answer your question because it did sound like a genuine inquiry.

Hi efficient_cause:

I am an atheist-agnostic-freethinker, but I also am a meditator and mystic. Although my interpretations of my mystical experiences are, at all times, speculative and metaphorical, I must say that the experiences themselves were (are) very emotional and of a unitive nature: a unitive feeling of at-one-ment with everyone and everything, unitive love and compassion, unitive consciousness and conscience. Although I don't adhere to any belief system, I would describe my experiences as experiences of a unitive and loving omnipresence, and my at-one-ment with IT. (if you take the dashes out of "at-one-ment" it spells "atonement" :-)

I can decsribe my mystical experiences and feelings, as well as the permanent fellow feelings that arose from those, in the terms of any belief- or thought-system. But what makes those feelings true and real are not the words but the feelings themselves, and these feelings are the motivators for my moral thoughts and actions.

From my mystical experiences and subsequent specualtions I have concluded that the universe is in a unitive state of synthesis which is beyond words and has to be experienced.

If you want to expereince IT, go ahead! Experiencing IT does not require any religious belief. In fact, it may be better to enter the mystical state without any preconceived bias. If we enter the mystical state with a preconceived religious bias, then we will tend to see our bias confirmed by the experience.

Getting IT

IT is we; we are IT.

We can't comprehend IT without experiencing IT,

But we can experience IT without comprehending IT—

For we are IT!

IT reveals everything;

IT explains nothing.

The interpretations

Of ITS revelations

Are our creations.

-Arminius

Ahhhh, a favorite topic.

As a non-believing atheist who has no time for the supernatural, I derive my morality from the following root defintion of what is good....

Any behavior that is life affirming, for all life, is good behavior. That is the one true natural morality. No supernatural belief or god(s) needed.

LL&P

Spock

Very logical Spock! Nicely, simply, factually described. Thanks. : )

Ah but yours is nice too Arminuis! ; )

There's just so much goodness in this room, it's great!

Hi Elanorgold: Thank you for the compliments!

spockis and I are both spiritual atheists. I, however, regard atheistic spirituality as a graceful way out of the ancient religious belief systems into a post modern, universally spiritual, human culture, and therefore pursue it from the religious side.

In other words. Unlike spockis, I don't try to prove the religionists wrong—I try to prove them right!

Atheism in the name of God.

Arm'

"human culture" ? Why limit yourself?

I am  at-one-ness with squirrels, tulips, etc., also.  A life culture, perhaps?

LL&P

Spock

Yes, of course, this "human culture" will be all-inclusive, but we humans will be its creators and evolvers. And it will be more than just a "life culture" because it will include everything: A Culture of the Cosmic Synthesis.

And, if the Cosmic Synthesis is regarded as God, a godly culture.

I like your approach Arminius. I thought years ago, that all religious people are really pagan anyway, cause how can anyone be anything other than governed by our human nature. All the little religious things we do translate into the term pagan, as defined as humanity looking for ways to define his world in spiritual terms, acting on those definitions and following rituals. Even staunch atheists can fit into this category sometimes, in the non religious ritualistic things we do, and little human ways we go about things. Of cource my definition of pagan may be flawed. But I liked the unitive thought.

Elanorgold,

Logical.

LL&P

SPock

The moral system that most people hold to is the one with which they're raised.  People labeled "free thinkers" are generally those that question at least some part of, if not the whole of thier societies moral compass.

The basics of morality, the ingrained differences between good and evil are something we are born with, and that our society further develops and enforces for it's own good.  Those who lack this component we call sociopaths, or psychopaths.

The morality of an individual, and whether or not they follow the norm, is not really a proper function of religion.  Yes, religion seeks to guide morality, but it is not the source of morality.  More killing has been done in the name of God and of other religious belief systems than any other reason throughout all of human history.

The world over, morality among different peoples may have some points of contention in some of the finer details, but the basics pretty much remain the same.  The call of morality serves only one overall master, the society that tries to guide, define, and refine it.  The subsocieties of religion also tries to accomplish this, sometimes at odds with the society within which it exists.  It is generally at such a time that the religion in question is then considered a threat, and all too often, violence ensues.

A healthy person, be they a believer or professed athiest will have the basics of morality built in, it is part of the human soul. 

The good/evil balance is really a very simple mechanism of survival.  That which is not harmful to you and the society that supports you is good.  That which harms you or the society you depend upon for survival is evil. 

That very basic foundation provides for virtually all of everything in the basic morality kit.  Lying, stealing, murder, openly coveting, adultery, all these things are harmful to both the person committing them and the society in which they live, whether it be a family unit, a small village, a large city, or a nation. 

While the finer points of what is considered moral will evolve over the life of a given civilization/society, the basics remain the same.

That is morality from a human perspective. And what is good/bad will always be subject to bias and relativism.

Why not consider the basics to be based on something much larger? - a natural morality based on life in general?

LL&P

SPock

Spockis53

I'm uncertain if your comment is in regard to what I said, but if it is I would like to say just a little more.

As to what I wrote being based upon a human perspective, yes it is, due in large part to my considering myself to fall within that catagory. :-)  You are absolutely correct that the finer points of morality will always be subject to bias and relativism in human society.

As for considering the basics based on life in general, they still hold.

In any collection of higher animals in nature, the basics remain.  Observation of herd/pack behaviour confirms what we consider to be the core of morality and is not substantially different from our own. 

Animals within the group which endanger the group or "break the rules" are dealt with.  Often the offender is ostracized for a time, as with horses.  Other are physically made to come into line, such as with lions, wolves, and such. 

The rules of communal living, whether the animal be human or otherwise are still oriented toward the continued survival and health of the group overall. 

exactly...

The thing is this... humans need to consider themselves a part of nature. This concept that we are special and subject to special morality is an aspect of religious belief systems that is proving to be very dangerous.

That is my point.

LL&P

Spock

I don't think this is much 'to chew on' at all. and I'll suggest a correction to your second quoted sentence:  "When theists (especially Christians) talk about atheism (etc.) and morality, it always seems to be about whether they can BE good or not".  (Then again, perhaps you don't consider atheists as 'people'.)

For the rest, I find it embarrassingly simple.  There are standards drilled into us from early childhood around this (I assume I don't need to provide examples for you), we get more in school, our own experience provides and solidifies many and then there are stories from peers, books, news items, the rest of media, laws and much, much more.  Everywhere one goes (quite literally - and lets avoid religious venues for the purpose of your question), standards for good are mentioned positively, while bad is mentioned in a negative light...  I'm astounded that you even ask - isn't this self-evident?  Or am I missing your gist?

Now some are contradictory issues that can be culture or religion-based, but they seem easy to deal with.  As an atheist, I couldn't care less about The Sabbath...  but I'm sure there has never been a Christian who works on that day (or sets a fire - lol)... so we differ.  And if I recall correctly, Christians should avoid atheists, so I'd guess those discussing issues with us here feel guilt (no?).  Or in some Islamic cultures, female skin should remain hidden, and most Christians and atheists (and thankfully almost everyone else) largely ignore that 'moral issue'.  Bottom line... it ain't rocket science to sift out the petty, irrelevant 'rules'.

The 'why' seems straightforward too...  There are usually laws that are punitive if broken and are so much better than most religious "morals", that religion is uttery unneeded.  And I'd suggest that the "Golden Rule" or some derivitive has been around since prior to the dawn of humanity... if you treat others well then there is a better chance they're reciprocate, and given that we'll social animals, we survive better with others cooperating than not.  So I submit that it's a simple evolutionary trait and to back that up (if that's actually needed), look at other social animals - they can exhibit same thing, even to the point that a rogue individual can be forced out of the collective. 

I also suggest that Christians do not exhibit any more morality than atheists...  certainly true in my experience and I've seen stats to back that up but I'm unclear of their validity.  If this is indeed the case, does anyone need Christian "morals"?  (Of course, I completely dismiss anything to do specifically with 'God', prayer, etc., as moral - morality just doesn't enter into it if one is say, 'worshipping God'.)

Finally, I'll ask you back... "Why NOT?"  That is, do you see reasons why we should not be moral in broad terms?  Yes we can gain by stealing, etc....  but long term?  It's often not worth the consequences.  I mean, most of us even care about our reputation after we die, so why not be moral?

Regarding the source of morality, here is how I see it.

 In my own “pursuit of happiness” I find myself wishing for peace and equality for all mankind. This has led me to wonder whether perhaps the main reason, that religious people such as Christians, Jews and Muslims, sometimes get defensive and antagonistic about non-religious people is that the religious ones see morality as a product of religious belief. After all, the Bible, Torah and Koran are the sources to which these faiths refer for their “instruction” as to what is right and what is wrong. Good and evil are what their scriptures say they are---not because of any sociological consideration, but because God, or Elohim or Allah said so. Thus, any criticism or doubt cast upon these faiths is seen as threatening to destroy morality itself. And this is scary.

This suggests to me that a way to begin a dialogue which could lead to peace and harmony amongst people of any and all religious backgrounds would be to consider a different perspective on morality. There are concepts of morality which are common to all the major religions as well as to the non-religious: the prohibition against murder; the prohibition against theft; the efficacy of love.

There are also needs and desires which are common to all, no matter their religious background: compassion, respect, belonging, safety, food and shelter, freedom. If we can focus on these values which we have in common, perhaps we can come to the understanding that morality has to do with how we relate to each other and to the universe.

Good then becomes that which contributes to a constructive relationship between each of us, and Bad becomes that which is destructive or harmful to our relationships. Love is good, not because Jesus recommended it or God commanded it. Love is good because it makes life better for all of us.

"If you have a moral system, where does it come from?"

It comes from us. 

"What justifies it's form and existence?"

We do.  Without our existence, anything 'higher' is immaterial to us. 

"I know this is a lot to chew on, but I think it's important. "

Trust me, it's not that much to chew on.  The only reason you're perplexed is because you still assume that without religion, we can't be good, and you're trying to find an answer on these pathetic terms.  The basis of morality for atheists is the same basis as that of theists in most of the world's religions, as much as they hate to admit it: the well-being of humankind. 

I'm tired of the assumption that not believing in God somehow means that you don't have a basis for morality.  Right, because when I stop believing in God, I immediately stop caring for others around me, as if my well-being is somehow not intimately dependent on theirs. 

Anyways, what a nihilistic and dehumanizing way of looking at the world, one which says that without an all-powerful cosmic police-officer waving a stick at us, we have no reason to care for one another. 

The sense of "right and wrong" never has been something that comes from the pages of religious scripture.  It's called altruism - and altruism exists in all things.  You can see it in animals, there are plenty of examples.  Google it, if you like, it's actually quite interesting.

In human beings, altruism is also present; it had to be for our species to develop and survive.  It's older than your religion, it's older than any religion.

People are not "good" because the bible told them to be so - the bible tells people to be "good" because it was written by normal, altruistic regular human beings.

Hi effecient cause,

Spock and Arminius are so much better at this than I but you have tapped into a favourite stream...

I don't know what label I am supposed to have but why would you think morality and ethics came from religion?  Apes and chimpanzees understand sharing, fairness and compassion yet have failed to build a church.  Respectfully, I would submit that the morality-from-religion argument is likely a natural but self-serving one.  If we had no ability to form communities we would have killed each other off well before any thought of divinity showed up.

Peace

I'm afraid I'm not as deep, or Vulcan-like, as Spock.  Like him, I don't believe in any supernatural being, but I've always considered the basis of my morality to be pretty simple:  I try to act towards others as I would want them to act towards me.

Christians may refer to this as "The Golden Rule".  Officially, I think it's called the ethics of reciprocity.  I call it "common sense", though it's not as common as one might hope.

The more I read Spock's answer, the more I like it.  I think it is more all-encompassing than mine, but neither approach requires even a single god.

Like this one, I think, but I'd rephrase the definition of good to include our relationship to our world as well to each other.

The basis for my morality is the teachings of various traditions, both religious and philosophical, that I've encountered. Jesus is a big one me, not because I think he's God incarnate, but because I was raised Christian and so am familiar with his teachings and because I find that he hit the nail right on the head so often. Judge not, do unto others, love thy neighbour as thyself, and so on. However, I do draw on my own sense of right and wrong and other teachings (including some humanist and atheist writers)  as well. And, of course, the UU principles, esp. the 1st (respect the inherent worth and dignity of all persons), which are grounded in the same sources.

I was raised by my parents to take my own paths in life and if it makes me happy then they were supportive 130%. I dont put my self in a category, im not atheist, im not agnostic I am a freethinker but that is a label I do enjoy having. My original back ground is christian united but I finally made the descision that im going to focus on myself and live my life. Im not saying there is a god im not saying there is not a god, I just don't really care. There are a few things that turned me off of religion, I didnt just wake up one day and decide this, I do have many reasons and this is something I thought long about. My first reason for just tuning out is because I was tired of being pulled in 500 different directions by people with conflicting relgious view. One group of people are saying you will go to hell if you do this this this and this while the other group of people are saying oh no its ok god loves everyone unconditionally except fags. I am 17 and for someone my age no matter how mature they are this is a tough thing to deal with. My second reason was basicly what is going to happen when I am on my death bed 90 years from now. Will I be able to say I lived out my life and did everything I wanted to do and achive even it was deemed a "sin"? Or will I try so hard to avoid "sinning" in order to get to heaven that I end up missing out on my life and different experinces because my religon deemed them a sin. In lehmans terms, I dont want to let something govern my life and tell me to do this and don't do that in order to achieve eternal peace in the after life. My third biggest reason is proof. I did try the religon thing, I gave it an honest shot. But being around people who have devoted every minute of their life to something that might not even exist scared the life out of me. Im not saying god doesn't exist but who is to say that he actually does.  That is my personal view on religon.

Now to answer your question about morality and good bad and ugly. I have my own opionion about faith but that doesn't make my morality and perceptions of right and wrong in our society any different then the devoted born again christian down the street. The only difference is our views and thoughts on relgion. I was raised and taught to be respectful and understanding of everyone. For me good bad evil right and wrong mean the exact same thing to me as they do you. Good is doing something positive for your self or another human. Bad is the opposite of being good. Evil is evil and wrong is wrong.  I have morality and I am mature and respectful beyond my years ( im 17).  Just because I dont believe in an organized relgion doesn't mean that I wasn't taught morality and  the right and wrongs of human civilization.

Thats my take on it and this is my first post on this site. Please keep in mind im not saying this way is right and that way is wrong. Im just sharing my beliefs and take on it and im not disrespecting anyones beliefs.

There is percentage of the worlds population that is morally sound regardless of whether they are religious or not. There is a percentage of the population whose morality will be lifted by religious teaching and percentage that will use religion to justify their immoral behavior. There is a percentage of the non- religious population that will live their life with most admirable example of morality possible and others that will simply feel the have no responsibility other than there own ego and selfishness.

You can find fools  and scholars to quote in all categories to prop up your own perspective of the truth. Morality is not intrinsically tied to religion. In fact a moral person that considers themselves religious and actually lives a life of positive impact would have to pick and choose what to follow in their chosen religion based on external criteria. I doubt many people would feel it acceptable to stone to death an adulterer or to find there is a reason to admire someone that is willing to torture a family member to prove ones religious conviction. No ,those who follow the religious teachings successfully would have to decide which bits are the good ones and while there is most certainly passages that would guide your criteria in choosing there are not passages that specifically tell you which parts to disregard. So I believe it wouldn't take considerable effort to devise that morality doesn't come from religion. A rather un-eloquent way of describing it is to say religion is an attempt to understand it, repackage and deliver it.

The question was where does it come from not where it doesn't it come from. First I concur with Spock that we humans are rather full of ourselves to believe we have special status.

We so often apply our human way of thinking on the world around us like it matters to the whole. It is my opinion that if you need to find a purpose and an explanation for morality you would have to spend considerable time studying the reasons why things that perpetuate survival get passed on and things that don't eventually find them selves history. It is a very human way to think to need to understand what morality is. Purpose is something we apply because we are cause and effect driven. Our more evolved therefore more complex brains certainly have complicated things considerably for ourselves. There are many intrinsic instinctive  processes that are at work that provide an opportunity for life to perpetuate. The more complex the organism the more complex the survival mechanisms. Having moral attributes would have numerous social benefits from the obvious;  being treated well by someone would in turn want you to spend more time with them. Treating people well feels good therefor you may have an instinctively more positive sense of self therefore be a more desirable companion. These are simplistic examples and obvious ones. There would be many primal instinctive survival attributes that would benefit from moral behavior.

I believe where it comes from is an interesting topic that could be explored at depth but a more socially  relevant  tangent of morality is how we , as the complex creature that we are, apply it. Some people have never known kindness and their reality has taught them away from their instinctive ability for moral behavior. Some people are biologically wired so that they are unable to apply or know what is moral behavior. We all determine our truth based on our experience and those experiences are as numerous as there are people to form those truths. Our gauge of our own morality should be determined by how we treat those people whose morality is in question and whose truth is different or even contrary to our own. We all have to stop thinking that we each alone have the monopoly on truth. We need to realize that life is a force that moves forward regardless of how humans interpret or apply purpose to it. The truths that we devise to attempt to understand it are ultimately irrelevant to the whole. Therefore WHATEVER you believe to be the truth, if it provides a framework for you to exist in a life affirming respectful manner then you should be applauded. Morality is one cog in an immensely complex and stunningly beautiful machine.

Although I am a Christian and belong to the United Church, I also am an atheist, agnostic, and freethinker.

My moral philosophy comes from the pure, unconceptualized experience of the meditative state. In this state, I experience being as a unitive whole. I actually experience being, or being at-one-with, the unitive whole. The emotional manifestation of that wholistic experience is all-encompassing, unitive love.

I base my moral philosophy on the unitive state and the unitive love which I experience in my direct experience of reality.

*applauding*

Thanks for bumping this thread up, Infinitetruths.  It's one I missed and it's been an interesting read.

I'm in complete agreement.  Thanks for framing it so elegantly.

Morality is one cog in an immensely complex and stunningly beautiful machine.

I've quoted the whole thing: it deserved to be reread :-) I've just started this thread, this is but #3 so I have many opinions to go.

Perhaps the spliht betwixt 'like minded' Christians has a basis in the meaning we give to words.

What are the odds you know what I mean when I say: God, Jesus, or that I will know your exact reaction to MY question: Does God have a sense of humor? This time when I type God, Jesus, I mean something a little cdifferently than I did last time. (Semantics 101)

In Sum: Great post.

I' going to enjoy the next 30....

Pain-pleasure from parents, others, neighborhood, world. Observation (learning) from parents, others, neighborhood, world.

As the answer differs from person to person, they will also answer differently using the same or different words. They will also differ from time to time. They will also differ according to how much they lie. (O.K., then... Exaggerate :-) 

I'm far too much of a hedonistic-egoist and (I LIKE this moniker:) Octogenarian, to worry about standardizing it . Am I satisfied with how good I am? That too is a variable, but I tend to give myself a lot of leeway....

Woah! A Great article! Thanks! Whew! I believe (because I want it to) that it butresses a little my  posit that there is no 'evil' but ignorance.

I get my morality from the same places that theists do.  I just don't then project it as being the ultimate morality of the universe.

Where did Geo post in this thread?  I see no posts from Geo here.