Valiya you have to understand that morality, even yours, is in fact an evolving human endeavor. Much of the old testament's laws were in fact rooted in ancient Mesopotamian laws. Specifically, Hammurabi's law, which in myth was given to him by the god Murdoc on stone tablets (sound familiar?) almost 4,000 years before the Hebrew culture arose from the post Mesopotamian land scape. However, if you do your research on the similarities and differences, you realize the jews modifield or dropped laws completely, based on thier developing sense of right and wrong. The Christians did the same thing, compounding on Jewish laws, but modified for a different culture and time. And so our culture does now as well.

Here's an example of how one law gets modified through the ages. Well go with divorce. Old testament there was no such thing as divorce. You were bound for life. If the woman got caught cheating, she was killed. If the man got caught, he had to pay fines and take a second wife.

The new testament, Jesus himself adresses divorce at one point. But essentially a man could divorce his wife if she cheated on him, or was found barren. Small step, but I guess it sure does beat being killed, as the law pertains to women.

Now, in American society, a divorce can be initiated by either the man or the woman for just about any reason. But generally not getting along is fine enough. Now let me ask you a question. In the old testament, a woman could have a marriage arranged by her parents, but was not allowed to divorce her husband under any circumstance, including spousal abuse. In fact the old testament even lays out several general rules pertaining to several "accepted" forms, and prescribes fines on the man for "unacceptable" forms. So, a woman could literally be forced into a marriage, often as young as ten, into abusive relationships. Now is this more or less moral than today's laws, which protect woman until the age of 18, make marriage a choice to be made by both parties, and allow an out incase the people change?

You see... many laws and moral codes are constantly under developement as more information becomes availabe. Now let me adress an issue you brought up. Homosexuality. You claimed that Homosexuality contributed to a list of STD's and anal cancer. However, science has proved most of that wrong already. The earliest cases of HIV in North America were found in heterosexual couples. Homosexuals were never found to have significant variances in STD infections that straight couples. And as far as promiscuity goes, the average heterosexual male is not uncommon to have 2-3 sexual partners annually before marriage. Also, that anal sex is actually pretty common as well in heterosexual couples with some reports finding 30% of couples engage in it on a regular basis. I'm not really sure what shit you were trying to pull, but everything you just tried to pin on homosexuals, affects equally as many heterosexual couples, statistically. And lastly, Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and phychologists have attested to that for years, despite Christians trying to get every behaviour they dislike labeled as a mental disorder.

Is Homosexuality wrong? No, regardless of whether you think Homosexuality is a nature or nurture behavior, as long as it occurs between two consenting adults, thier sex like is thier busines. Is Gay marriage immoral. Not if it's two consentinel adults. Marriage is now a government recognized legal status, which in my opinion means anyone who wishes to be legally recognized as a couple should be eligible to apply.

My basis for morality stems from an intellectual stand point that personal freedoms should be granted freely in all cases where the persons desired course of action does not endanger or infringe upon the same personal freedoms of those nearby. Obviously, every instance needs be addressed on it's own. For example, your smoking scenario. I generally like to expand smoking to drug use in general.

So let's break drug use down by my moral stand point, which in in extremely simple terms, is grant freedom as long as it does not endanger others.

So, should people be allowed to smoke? As a smoker myself, I am all for this personal choice. I am well aware that smoking is dangerous, and the risk involved in smoking.

However, in the Marines we have a process we refer to ORM, or Organized Risk Management. Essentially ORM is a process of recognizing the risks in any course of action, and taking proper precautions to minimize the risks. As an example, we physically train to condition our bodies to the stress of combat. However, such training is inevitable risky on its own. There is always the threat of heat exhaustion, dehydration, and personal injury. But being physically more capable than our opponents in combat has always been the cornerstone of our success. So being fit is more desirable than the risk present in PT. So we decide to engage in training anyways, but minimize the risk by training in cooler parts of the day, having water readily available, and making sure everyone uses proper technique in all excercises.

How does this tie into smoking. Everyone is granted the personal choice to decide what outcomes are worth the risk in any situation. Smoking is pleasurable, as are most drugs. It is up to each person to acquaint themselves with the risk involved.

But why do I believe that people should be free to engage in self destructive acts such as smoking? Because I realize most acts can be self destructive. There is always a small amount of risk involved in any scenario. As an example, two virgins could wait till marriage to engage in sexual activity, just to find out one may have been infected with AIDS from a parent or blood transfusion. You could follow every safety precaution on the road, just to crash due to a manufacturing defect in your break lines. You could chew your food a thousand times to avoid choking, and accidentally inhale it instead and drown. What I'm getting at is everything is risky. You can't ban risky self destroying behavior. Instead it is up to each person to accept the risks involved in thier course of action. Even suicide is a person's rightful choice.

I think religion is very controlling in the essence it strips away personal choice and freedom, and forces adherence to laws that can't be proven to be significantly positive. Such as daily prayer, abstinence, fasting... etc.

Valiya, when I read the body of your OP, I can substitute the word theist for athiest and the words interpretation of their holy book for the word whim and many would find it quite plausible.

The title of your OP contends that atheism creates a moral vacuum. However, you then go on to inquire about that upon which an atheist bases their morality. Sounds like a non sequitur to me.

Valiya, you bring up some valid points. I'll try to refute.

First, I think we may in actuality be in agreeance on the case of Morality versus the Enforcement of Law. But it is like I many times try to explain, there is an interconnectedness between most human endeavors. A cause and effect pattern. Moral codes generally try to manifest as laws sooner or later. For example, Shariah Law is literally a moral code based in the Muslim belief system being implemented as a code of law. In America, as society we must confront such morality, and try to come to a conclusion whether such things should become law. It is one thing to adhere to a moral code yourself, and quite another to attempt to enforce another to abide by it. As a society of cultures unified under the banner of individual freedoms, law should be the bare minimum to protect persons from bodily injury. As an example, I'm not particularly upset that we have religious communities in America whether they be Muslim, Christian, Budhist, Mormon or otherwise. However, every side has a belief structure they expect others to adhere to.

As an example, I'll refer to a case that received relative notoriety a few months ago. I never read too much on the specifics, but generally the case involves a wedding cake bakery that refused bake a cake for a homosexual couple on religious grounds. Generally, like your College dress code example, I'm fine with a privately owned business refusing service for their own conviction. However, somehow it got to the court level, where this couple attempted to sue the bakery for descrimination. That's where I draw the line. If someone wants to forego monetary gains to hold a conviction I'm fine with it. I don't respect it, but it's their choice. I also don't get upset over the welfare of their children as a result. Perhaps being poorer may show that child that tolerance is more enriching than an unfounded religious conviction. Maybe in some parallel universe that cake bakery finds a niché in the market selling cakes to heterosexual couples. I can't really say how everyone is going to act as a result of such decisions.

Which kinda leads into your point of banning self destructive behavior. You say that it only seems self destructive on the micro scale, but in a larger sense such behavior can be destructive on the macro level. The truth is, because there are soo many individuals making individual decisions based on the micro experience, the macro level in the near future is hard to prophesize, and the long run it gets even harder as time and personal opinions change.

As an example, a lackluster alcoholic parent may dissuade a child from deciding to use alchohol at all. A responsible parent consuming alchohol may instill a sense of self restraint. Two scenarios that are complete opposites can lead to a similiar result. By the same token, an alcoholic parent may instill a sense that excessive alchohol use is acceptable. While because of the success of a responsibly consuming parent may instill a sense that excessive use will not effect a person. Again, same two scenarios inspiring a vastly different results. If this scenario played out, perhaps having alcoholic child might inspire a alcoholic parent to quite. Or having a responsible con suing child may inspire non consuming parent to start. And these example influence other examples, so on and so forth. And yet, unless you can predict how each individual will react to the experiences presented to them, you have no clue if a community may be all alchoholics, all responsible consumers, a completely alchohol abstaining, or a mixture all the outcomes. The same can be said of smoking. Perhaps a smokers death influences others to quite or start. Who knows really, it's all based on how people perceive such things. But it's ultimately their choice.

Valiya, you said above that you will not drink even a drop of alcohol. Is that decision based on a specific instruction from your holy book?

If so, and you use that instruction as your moral measuring stick, do you also think it is appropriate for compliance to that instruction be mandatory for others who do choose to drink drops of alcohol?