My nails are so bright, they gotta wear shades!
Yeah, I might have problem. LOL Three different paint jobs in 3 days. Oh well. I'm on vacation, and this is FUN. FOR. ME. 😛
A Note To Christians Who Come Here To Ask The Absurd Question: "Where do you get your morals from if you don't believe in, or read the bible?"
As to what this particular Atheist defines to be a moral: A moral is a idea or belief that is held or acted upon in an altruistic fashion for the betterment of another individual or the society he lives in, these beliefs and actions are predicated on a innate sense of what is truly good and just. I would highly suggest you begin by reading "The Social Contract" by Jean-Jacques Rousseau to have a firmer grasp of what a moral is, why we have them and how we form them. It is a sad pitiful argument that you theist produce, that you have no moral foundation if you don't follow the bibles prescribed inhumanity towards one another. The bible has been around for around 2000 years, Humaninty has been around for roughly 200,000 years, and for that 198,000 years prior to the bible, morals existed because man is a social animal and is codependent on his fellow man for his survival and the survival of his offspring, and moral behavior for a healthy village or tribe depended on trust of his fellow tribesman to do the right thing for the survival or greater good of the tribe. I would even venture to postulate that morals began long before modern Homo sapiens, because you can see moral formation in groups of primates in the wild. Chimps and Gorillas are notoriously monogamous for example, and do not murder, or rape anyone within their own group or family because it only serves to create social disharmony and weakens the groups ability to focus on survival. Morals are our basic primate monkey instinct telling us what to do that is good for the survival of our species. I don't think you read your bible, or else you would realize how immoral it is, that's nothing to be ashamed of, because most people haven't, if only for the painful incoherence of it alone. What you will find if you did read your bible is that the few elements and verses along with the ten commandments that are presented as morals are in fact not morals at all no matter how good they sound, because of a couple of underlying factors which are the believer has to be told what to do in order to do those few good acts prescribed in the bible, and the follower does those acts out of selfish ulterior motivations of fear of hell or reward in heaven.
I have put a lot of thought into what is the most rudimentary common denominator of what it is that's the initial instinctual motivation of what makes a belief or action moral and good, and it all boils down to one quality which is empathy. We make our moral decisions and do good for others out of our sense of empathy for our fellow man. I also thought about sympathy as well but ruled it out because someone who has not experienced the same thing as another will still do moral acts for his fellow man regardless, an example would be well fed citizens in modern countries sending money and aid to those who are starving in third world countries. So it boils down to empathy as the motivating factor of morality even over survival needs that I had previously alluded to, but still holds true. I recall a passage from a lesser known book by Dr. Sagan entitled "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" about an experiment performed on macaque monkeys which I had read a long time ago and I think it illustrates my premise perfectly:
"In the annals of primate ethics, there are some accounts that have the ring of parable. In a laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so - 87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow. Macaques who had themselves been shocked in previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain. The relative social status or gender of the macaques had little bearing on their reluctance to hurt others. If asked to choose between the human experimenters offering the macaques this Faustian bargain and the macaques themselves - suffering from real hunger rather than causing pain to others-our own moral sympathies do not lie with the scientists. But their experiments permit us to glimpse in non-humans a saintly willingness to make sacrifices in order to save others - even those who are not close kin. By conventional human standards, these macaques - who have never gone to Sunday school, never heard of the Ten Commandments, never squirmed through a single junior high school civics lesson - seem exemplary in their moral grounding and their courageous resistance to evil. Among these macaques, at least in this case, heroism is the norm. If the circumstances were reversed, and captive humans were offered the same deal by macaque scientists, would we do as well? (Especially when there is an authority figure urging us to administer the electric shocks, we humans are disturbingly willing to cause pain - and for a reward much more paltry than food is for a starving macaque [cf. Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental Overview].) In human history there are a precious few whose memory we revere because they knowingly sacrificed themselves for others. For each of them, there are multitudes who did nothing."-- Dr. Carl Sagan