Kazan, belief in nothing but yourself leads only to egotism. That is the only logical conclusion of humanism/atheism. I wish you well, but I refuse to waste time arguing with an egotist.
I'd content that statement to be rather insulting; can you back it up?
Perhaps I should elaborate from a position of raised Protestant, turned agnostic, turned aetheist. Aetheism is not 'self worship'; aetheism is the belief that there is no need for a supernatural or supreme diety acting as invisible puppeteer. Aetheism is the decision that belief systems like Christianity have no base in rationality (fair enough - faith based systems, after all) and, more relevantly, that they are constructs invented and used by particular groups of people as a method of asserting their particular set of moral convictions (God invented by man, in effect).
Aetheism, then, doesn't entail belief in oneself. That'd be a rather odd concept, in fact; I am my God? Very odd. It entails a lack of belief in anything that would be worshipped and by extension being of the opinion that the workings and nature of the universe can be understood by, well, learning & investigation (theism doesn't bar rational investigation, of course, but it does limit it by setting unproveable preconceptions).
Now, I'll skip nimbly onto the subject of morality per se. Religion (again, aetheistic perspective) sets morals as a method of codifying the society in which that religion was formed. Sometimes these are common sense within evolved / societal group dynamics (like not stealing or killing other members of the group), sometimes reflection of formed bigotry or bias. Said religious morals frequently also reflect now antiquated views of social, gender, etc groups, views which society mostly now knows 'better than' thanks to the ever increasing development of rational investigation and learning.
Anyways, in my book, there is a societal basis for why religions 'hide' nudity. I would guess it is at least partially down to sexual competition and the resultant 'protective' urges of men; sexual competition is all about men competing for (to be picked by) a woman. Once the man 'wins' into a monogamous (well, for the female - humans are naturally mildly polygamous, as any hunter-gatherer society shows - this is also why we have sexual dimorphism) relationship, I would imagine that the prohibitions on nudity (excluding where it's just down to common sense, i.e. bloody cold) emerged as a way of claiming pseudo-ownership of their partner. In terms of 'not exposing the kids', I believe it's simply because children of that age don't have the rationing capacity to make sensible, safe decisions regarding sex and so a 'don't show, don't tell' method is adopted to stop them, well, shagging (and various other sexual activities). However, I believe it's highly debatable whether that approach does any good - I suspect education is key, as children will invariably exposed in some way in anything beyond a repressive, highly censored society, and it only takes one voice in the playground.
However, I would like to note that 'filth and obscenity' is a personal definition, and can be applied to (for example) loud street preachers. Swearing, for example, can be completely innofensive (and is) to many people but extremely offensive to people; legislation on these types of things needs to be minimal, not maximal, as society acts as a regulation upon behaviour anyways. It's worth noting, in this area, that aethism (or more appropriately, freedom of speech and secular respect) does not 'force' anything upon people beyond the right to
choose.
