Murder as defined in law, no. It is OK to kill somebody in some circumstances.
Depends on the circumstances, but I don't feel that bothered either way. There are worse forms of betrayal.
Stealing as defined by law, no. Removing the property of another can be justified, but not when contrary to law.
There are very few "correct" answers to any moral question that are regardless of circumstances.
Atheism has nothing to do with it. The are no correct answers for anyone, only opinions. Who is marking the paper?
You would be wrong then.
No, I doubt atheists disagree with each other on that. What we disagree with is that in the realm of human morals and ethics, Christians can create an illusion of objective morality that actually works in the real world of human relations.
And you'll be wrong. There is nothing in atheism that requires a particular answer to any of the above questions.
No. Murder is always wrong/illegal, by definition. I'm answering this as an intelligent human being; my atheism has nothing to do with that answer.
Nope. Same qualification; atheism is irrelevant to this subject.
Nope. Same qualification; atheism is irrelevant to this subject.
You can't answer for Christians. You can only answer for yourself.
And there is no objective morality of God that is applicable in human reality.
No, that's a fact, and I know you will not even attempt to test it because you know how fragile your belief in a God ordained objective morality truly is.
I guess you've completely missed the arc of history and the caprice of the natural world then. The world you claim infested with God and His objective morality is a pretty amoral place. Morality developed in, and exists in, humans alone.
It is possible to "know" via witness and experience of the objective world compared against theories involving the characteristics of God and His involvement in His creation. There are no objective set of rules that even God followed.
That would be to say that there is no morality to be found on earth. We already know that's not true. You are on pretty shaky logical ground here so far.
Yes, amoral even with a divine origin, so God has no moral characteristic if His creation contains and expresses His very nature, which is the Christian claim. Again your logic is getting tangled in a web trying to find some odd traction against what we already know about Christian doctrine.
That doesn't follow. It doesn't matter what one believes about the origin of morality. Morality is a measure of worth of an action towards common human objectives found in all humans. The moral efficacy of an act is not measured against what the actor believes about moral origins. That's just illogical.
I'm trying to say that despite the claim that God expresses an objective morality by nature, the nature He created is amoral and it is humans alone that add any semblance of morality in the landscape and it is only objective to our collective inner natures, not a distant deity's fiat.
Is is okay to own another person as your chattel slave in any circumstances?
Atheism doesn't demand a particular answer to those questions, but atheists may well converge on similar answers to those questions, but not because of their atheism necessarily.
So...you dont' know what "content" means.
No.
No.
Maybe. If your family is starving and you steal to save their lives that could be considered OK. It is not OK to steal just to enrich yourself.
Okie dokie.
There is no 'correct' answer for anyone since right and wrong are subjective. We each decide for ourselves what is right and wrong. I could argue why I think my answers are right but I cannot prove it objectively.
No.
Regurgitating the Party Line and atheeist Religious talking points and mantras is not "thinking for yourself"
BINGO!