All atheists have to define morality is subjective opinion.
Says who? Not believing in a God or group of gods in no way implies you have no morals. Many atheists recognise that harming others is emotionally traumatising, as such they do not condone immoral behaviour for the simple fact that it's "not nice". You don't need a god to have morals (and vice versa, I might add).
This can be anything from sex being okay for engaged couples to orgies being acceptable.
I don't see anything wrong with either situation. To each his (or her) own.
There is no authority to refer to.
Atheism is not the same thing as Anarchy.
Morality depends only on majority consensus in the form of the law. What the law defines as acceptable, is considered acceptable. Not all atheists believe the same things, but there is ultimately no right and wrong because it is all subjective.
The only people I've ever heard say "Atheists have no concept of right or wrong" are specifically
non-Atheists. Atheism, itself, does not reject order. The only true definition behind atheism is not believing in a god(s).
Pre-marital sex is condemned as a sin something like 20 times or more in the Bible. Those Christians who argue it is not a sin have no scriptural basis for their belief.
Christianity is divided into two major halves, the "Western" Roman Catholic church and the "Eastern" Orthodox church. Neither is right or wrong, they are merely separate branches of a single belief, just as Mahayana Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism are two schools of one religion (though technically Buddhism is a philosophy). Having said that, one half of the Christian faith, the Orthodox church, has far less focus on "scriptures" than its counterpart. Orthodox priests place very little focus on the bible, for example. Maybe that's why their priests can marry (thereby preventing psychological abnormalities which the Roman Catholic church has accomplished in spades, namely: paedophilia). Having said that, scriptures are only obsessively regarded by ONE HALF of the Christian faith. The other half practise a more productive approach by placing emphasis on spirituality rather than over-analysing words written millennia ago.
So, you're saying that for a person who is not married, the answer is to have casual sex?
I wouldn't say I think that's an "answer" to anything, no. But I see nothing wrong with it. I don't see anything wrong with your decision to abstain until marriage, either. To me, neither is a particularly big deal.
This leads to all kinds of problems from HIV to abortion.
Not if you are practicing protected sex.
This kind of lifestyle cannot exist without abortion because modern contraception is not reliable.
I beg to differ.
Not only does this attitude result in HIV and hundreds of abortions every day, it changes sex for an act of love to something done solely for gratification.
To some people it is "an act of love", to some people it's an act of passion, to others still it's an erotic sharing of the senses and I suppose maybe to some, even, it's something of an art form. How delightful we live in a world where we can choose to view different acts how we wish. I perceive mountain climbing as nothing special, but ask an avid mountain climber and they will tell you it's something really special, it's spiritual, its enlightenment, it?s being close to god, etc. The same can be said of sex.
I am single and I know what it's like to be celibate, and it's not easy. But it would be highly irresponsible of me to go out and pick up men to sleep with, not caring whether I pick up a disease or make a baby that I cannot at present give a home too.
OK, you've raised two separate issues here. Having responsible sex with whomsoever you choose and having irresponsible sex with whomsoever you choose without concern for STDs or pregnancy are different subjects. I find your point of view surprising since you claim to defend women's rights. I see nothing wrong with a woman who has sex responsibly (i.e., protected) with more than one partner. But that's because I am a strong defender of liberating women and allowing them to choose their own path in life, rather than chaining them down to an ancient set of rules.
Those of your camp would say abort the baby and wear a condom. There is no such thing as safe sex.
See my response above. You will find your statements regarding safe sex disproved by observing statistics. Besides which, one can always engage in non-copulating sexual acts which 100% prevent pregnancy and STDs (which, aside from naming mutual masturbation, I don?t think I need go into further detail here).
It is my responsibility to myself, any child I could make and to society, to abstain from sex until I find a man who is as committed to me as I would be to him. Only then would it be right to have sex.
If that's what you believe FOR YOURSELF, fantastic. I'm delighted that you've found a foundation with which to live by, one that satisfies you. Likewise, I encourage others to have their own beliefs (even if that stands in opposition with yours).
I also have no desire or intention to risk my life having sex with a man to whom I would just be a slot in the hole. If a man is not willing to marry me, then he is not committed to me, and it would be wrong to risk making a baby with him.
Look, I don't mean to be offensive -- we are allowed to disagree of course -- but, much like the entire Western half of the Christian faith, I think you're a little too hung up on this notion of sex. I've often wondered where Christianity?s phobic obsession with sex stems from. For example, I don't have a particularly strong point of view on gays. Frankly, I could care less what they do with their lives (it's their life, after all, not mine). Yet it amazes me to no end that so many ALLEGEDLY NON-GAY Christians oppose the homosexual community with fanatic devotion. It makes me wonder if maybe they're not really angry at gays for .. being gay .. but instead fearful that they, themselves, might be gay. Otherwise, why would they care so much!? It's something I've just never understood. And, again, I'm saying that as someone who has virtually no opinion whatsoever on the issue of gay rights and such (a bit of a derailment, I realise).
I don't know any atheist who has as much sense of sexual responsibility as most Christians I know
Really? How many Atheists do you know? Are you friends with any, or do you instead shun them or, at best, merely argue with them? I'm saying that as an honest, matter-of-fact question, not to provoke you or inspire anger.
what you've said above confirms in my mind what I was thinking - without God there are no moral standards, especially sexual ones.
Again, I must point you to my above remarks regarding Atheism and morals. One needn't worship a deity to have morals. One of the greatest misconceptions of the non-Atheist world (and I'm saying this as something of a non-Atheist myself) is that if you don't believe in God (conveniently the Christian god only for some unexplained reason) then murder, rape, theft, and so on are perfectly OK.
Come on, that's absurd. If you want to argue against a subject you must fully understand the subject first. Think about it. Hurting others isn't nice. I don't want to be hurt because it's unenjoyable, therefore I have no desire to hurt others because I know how it feels. I don't see why religion necessarily has to enter into that picture. Rabbits don't hurt each other, and they're not even sentient! A lot of animals co-exist peacefully and it's not because of any religious observance.
And I must again point you towards the history of the single most violent concept known to man: monotheism. Monotheism (with Christianity at its forefront and Islam following as a close second) have been responsible for an infinite amount more violence and bloodshed than Atheism or Evolutionism. This makes me wonder how you can think Atheism condones an absence of morals. You name me one violent Atheist who has left his or her mark on history. In return, I'll name for you one thousand violent Christians (or other Monotheists). I'm being completely serious.
