That sounds like a strange question for a Level 8 member to ask. The question contains a strange implication. I would be willing to answer a less presumptive question.
I follow my moral compass. You know, "harm nobody intentionally", "do your best not to be an asshole", "treat others well", and "don't follow religious teachings".
As has been stated by so many on here, religion doesn't have domain over the internal moral compass. Associating religion with morality is pious, pompous, reckless, and a sign of a doomed cult.
False positive correlation: 1) only religious people are moral; 2) that morals are somehow are tied to religion; 3) agnostics and atheists are not capable of moral choice becsuse they are not religious.
Morals are more a cultural expression of a groups world view as to what type of behavior is the best to maintain the health of that culture.
Do anything you want as long as it harms no others, harm includes imposing against ones consent.
I was raised a Christian, so the moral code I was taught was basically the Golden Rule. But the idea of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is hardly exclusive to Christianity (or any other religion, really). It works just as well as a secular moral code.
The "golden rule". Do onto others as you would have done onto youself. Treat others with respect ( untill you know better), do no harm.
Do to others as you would have them do to you - seems to cover most things
The question assumes that until a person comes out as agnostic or atheist/a-theist then she follows a religious code of ethics.Suddenly, one day he decides that he is in fact a non-believer so for the first time must decide from where she will now get her moral principles.A non-question as for years I and many others have rejected religion as the basis on which we rest our ethical principles.Airing those views on a public platform thanks to the WWB heralds no change in how we treat others including animals.I was already a vegetarian prior to communicating my views to the world and view my fellow humans as deserving of respect without the need for a man made god to encourage me to love my neighbour for fear of eternal suffering if I do not.
The golden rule works for me.
There seems to be(?) an implication here that being an atheist means rejecting everything religious people believe in. It's not like political parties that both feel that they are obligated to hate everything their opponents like. I have no problem with the later half of the ten commandments but don't need a hard copy of them to remain compliant. If there is a physical "moral code" somewhere it might be interesting to see. I tried to search "moral code" just now and only got a definition for "morality" for which I also have no problem. So is there an assumption that atheists can't tell right from wrong or moral from immoral if we don't reference the Bible for that information?
Odd question. I'd hate to be basing my moral values on the xtian book which is full of rape, murders, pedophilia, genocide, bigotry etc.
We aren stardust. We are golden. BehAve accordingly!
I have always been non religious and I follow my own codes which change at my whim according to what is goign down - there was a book called the water babies (not a great read - religious connotations all teh way through ) There was a character called 'Mrs Do as you would be done by!' and I rather liked that .Basically I live and let live and if I am totally peed off by anybody I let them know ; and if they are insufferable I blank them - If I have friends they are people I can have a really good laugh with.
I am following me... until the very end.
Ethics tempered by Empathy
What you do to the least, you do to me.
If you (or I) can treat one person poorly, then we are capable of treating anyone (including loved ones) poorly.
I don't think there has to be some omnipotent being sitting on the other end ready to reward or punish me to do what's right. That with some patience emathy and logic, I feel, the "moral" choice is at least easier to see. For Humanity sake try to make the right decision
I have very good morals! I don't need some bible thumping idiot to tell me otherwise either, just because I don't need a manual to live by.
I use Ayn Rand's definition of good and evil, where good is that which advances life, and evil is that which impedes life. It's amazing how far that will take you.
BTW, it's religious people who have no morals. Ask them to define good and evil and watch what happens. If they say good is "god", then point out that god killed nearly everyone on the Earth, so should we measure our goodness by how many innocent people we have killed?
Well stated. Thank you