Like your own personal code of conduct.
Your personal set of rules for what you feel is good or bad behavior.

Like I said in my original post, everyone differs as to what they feel is good or bad, and has different reasons for feeling that way. So everyone has a different set of morals that they live by, and what is good to one person may seem terrible to another.

Hanae, I totally understand. The only thing is that I don't want to hear it from you but from your friend. If your friend has a mangaupdates account, you can direct him/her to this thread. Otherwise, thank you for your contribution, but don't post anymore.

Popetaffy, could you give me an example of your morals and how you decided them?

________________

in what sense?

In whatever sense you meant when you wrote this. ^


________________

I haven't got a specific set of rules for what is wrong and what is right.
If it has got negative consequences for something, then it is wrong.
Acts can be both wrong and right at the same time, depending what
your perspective. Morals do not stem from religion, they've been
around for thousands of years and the basics are pretty much the same
regardless of your origin or the age you live in, respect others, treat
humans with rights well, don't cheat on your lover and such.
I don't tend to judge people or actions, but if the deeds are clearly
egocentric and cause harm on others, then it is bad to begin with,
as that kind of thinking and acting harms everyone.

uh, i'm sorry but is really obvious

of course is not a strict rule, but rather something that comes up naturaly, its no wonder that is is in nearly every religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Oh? You don't have that at school? We have to discuss such things in class so often that one would likely to bored his head off.

Natural law is the opposite of legal positivism or positive law (man-made law). Wiki it if you don't know. In simple english, it just means that there are already universal law before humankind decided to compose our written law. From the natural law arises natural rights, e.g. the right to defend yourself or your properties. It became part of the human rights and after that the law that we are using.
Dignity is, commonly speaking, how you judge yourself and what kind of level in morality as well as the society you put yourself in. Hence you shall judge other people and their action based on this.

Each and every person has the right and the ability to acclaim what is right or what is wrong, despite how utterly mistaken the matter might be. One can do whatever he or she thinks is right, even though that means standing against the entire world. However there shall always be consequences for each and every action one makes. The code of law exists to prevent one from falling into unnecessary troubles or suffering from burdening compensation. Perhaps it can still be wrong, not every law can be right, but as long as you can live with it, you shall see the positive side. On the other hand one can always rebel.

Somewhere on the way the issue of majority rule and minority rule will take place. What the crowd agrees on cannot prove that it is true, and in some case the other way around.

I would never say there is no right or wrong, because there IS right and wrong. I believe in what you can actually prove more than fantasy story of folktales, but I still think that there is a possibility things in our imagination can exist in a way or another. This is a rather bad advice though, but one just has to do what he or she thinks is right.

________________
Man is more ape than many of the apes.

Nothing is ever simple enough for me to have decided on in advance if it is right or wrong. I try to never get involved in situations, where judgment is required, with a preconceived notion of the correct way or choice.

I can see the use of rules, to be used as guidelines, but I will not allow myself to stare blindly at a list of rules I myself or someone else might have thought up prior.

I change; develop as I learn and as a result become more humble as time passes. The things I was taught about right and wrong as a child get amended, built on or even corrected as I grow older and wiser.

I do not know what is right or wrong, and frankly it doesn't feel as if it matters; what matters is my well being and oftentimes that means the well being of others, friends and acquaintances. I recognize that my empathy does not reach to include strangers in faraway lands most of the time, but news and documentaries at least momentarily bring even these people close enough to hurt.

Unfortunately as I've written this far, I realize I do not qualify for your question as "more specifically to atheists who believe in some sense of right and wrong/good and bad/etc.", but I will post this nonetheless in hopes that it will give you something.

I don't understand why you're asking atheists this. I mean, I do know why, I think your implications are a little off though. Religion simply isn't necessary to create your own sense of morality. I don't think when many theists hear about violence or war or rape or whatever they think, "Man, that's wrong because my religion said so and that is the means by which I must determine morality." In actuality, despite having so many different philosophies in the world, much of what we believe is moral is merely instinct/cultural. I guess the only way someone can argue that atheists determine morality different than theists is by claiming that theists derive morality from religion or that atheists are somehow part of a different subset of culture that does not inherit morality from the encompassing culture.

I'm kind of bad at coming up with examples, but I'll give it a shot. Let me see...

Say I had promised to meet a friend of mine to help them do something. I say I will, and then I end up being late because I was doing something (like playing video games) and lost track of time. I can either tell them the truth, or I can make up a story about why I was late and get them to believe it was due to circumstances outside of my control.

If I tell the truth, my friend might be a little annoyed. If I lie, they'll probably believe me. That's where morals come into play. I wouldn't like to be lied to, even if the truth was something I wasn't particularly fond of hearing. So, I tell the truth, even if it means my friend will be a little disappointed in me.

The main way I decide what's right is by using the golden rule everyone learned when they were about 4 years old. If I wouldn't want to be lied to, I won't lie. If I wouldn't want to be hit in the head with a stick, I won't hit anyone in the head with a stick. Of course, there are always grey areas when it comes to anything like this, but in order to keep it simple, that's basically what everything boils down to for me.

Not sure how to answer this with a short replay so I'll stick to the definition - whatever helps to maintain or improve my livelihood.
I'll also give 2 examples of my thought on what is and isn't beneficial:
1) Is helping someone or working beneficial. Most of the time I would say yes. Since I gain some form of satisfaction and/or resources.
2) Would killing someone be beneficial. Can't see the benefit in that unless it's a matter of life and death for me or I decide to steal too and even then I would still find it non-beneficial.There is the risk of being caught and having my freedom severally restricted.

Of course actual situations have more variables so the way I see which actions would be beneficial would change but the examples show my general mindset.

Last edited by Reiten at 2:09 pm, Aug 10 2012

I assume you're politely asking us why we have--or at least claim to have--morals, despite lacking belief in a book that tells us what's right and wrong.

Here's a simple explanation for you: It's human nature to be "good", at least, by natural selection. It's instinct. I recall Richard Dawkins pointing this out. In other words, we are good to each other because it's for survival. You scratch my back, I scratch yours--we're both more likely to survive if we care for each other. If we have empathy. Which, in my humble opinion, is mankind's greatest asset.
Through social evolution we have also evolved our morals to what they are today. Wayyy before 2000 years ago there were set standards against rape, murder, and pillaging in many different places. We recognized that these things made the other person unhappy (or in the case of murder, the family was unhappy). We had empathy back then, too.

I like being a good person. I like making others happy without asking for a reward. I am a good person because I choose to be, because I like to be. Of course, religious or atheistic, there are going to be the types of people who desire otherwise.

________________
Go to work, send your kids to school;
Follow fashion, act normal;
Walk on the pavement, watch T.V.;
Save for retirement, obey the law.
Repeat after me: I am free.

You're question is kind of a toughie, but I'll try and give you my own answer in as few words as possible. For whenever possible, I try to decide what is right or wrong based on how it will affect others. For instance, I wouldn't kill because someone might miss the victim, and I wouldn't steal because someone is earnestly trying to make a living. So for me, for something to be right or wrong would depend on how happy it makes others, which in turn makes me happy.

There's more I want to say (for instance, I believe in the death penalty, which should go against what I've just said), but to avoid you having to read an obnoxiously long post, I'll stop here for now and allow for any questions you may have. I'll also say thanks for opening up this discussion! I understand (or believe I do) that you are simply curious as to how atheists' minds differ from your own, and by asking, you allow for understanding and tolerance (well...ideally x] )

Khh, I don't think you understand what I'm asking. I am asking about your desires. Do you decide what they are? Do you have them since birth and become aware of them? How do you become aware of them?

Giinko, I am loving your answers! Lot's of great info. How do you decide what is right/good?

havoccc, thanks your reply was well appreciated. How would you describe your well being?

iheartramen, I am not sure of what you mean. Did you understand the question because you didn't answer it?

Popetaffy, thanks for the reply. It was very much appreciated. Now my question for you is the same as the one for khh. Look at the top of this post. ^

Reiten, you can use a long reply just try to keep it within 300 words. Please repost with a more in-depth explanation.

Saons, why do you like to make others happy? Remember I am asking about personal opinions.

PandaGod19, my question for you is the same as for Saons.
P.S. That is not at all the reason I made this thread. I made this thread because I have a facination with human behavior, and I limited it to atheists because I can more or less predict the answers I would get from Christians/Muslims/Jews, but I don't know what to expect from atheists. I plan on making another thread in the future asking the same question to Buddhists because I don't quite know what to expect from them either. So yes for understanding but not for tolerance. I tolerate most everyone quite well as it is.

Last edited by zimzimbadabim at 2:49 pm, Aug 10 2012

________________

Since you ask a layered question,I will provide a multi-layered reply-

It is my stated belief that we are all sociopaths, with varied efficiency of function.

On the most shallow everyday level, most of us decide good/evil and right/wrong based on the mores fed to us by a cultural and societal milieu which evolved around the central theme of rewarding the selfless and punishing selfish behavior i.e what is good for the tribe and something that isn't? ie preserving the tribe, its power structure and hierarchical institutions. (aka law and order)
It is basically a mechanic of evolutionary behavior of providing the drive to expand and preserve the population of our species, coerced by the society into serving its own ends

But the fact remains that this mechanic has today, come to govern in general, actions which offer few tangible material rewards except maybe a more civil society and nicer strangers or doesn't entail great sacrifice on the individual's part.(Except maybe crime, but that again involves a degree of irrational behavior)

It is only when we raise the stakes and enter the variable of sentient intellect into the pathway of decision making and that we find that this mechanic is downgraded and becomes subservient to the "me- first" drive that sets the primary directives governing the course of an individuals life choices. I am not saying that this is the norm, but in my opinion a majority of human behavioral choices can be viewed as an interaction between selfless and selfish and long term gain v/s short term gain mechanics. This the hallowed ground of rational and irrational behavior and self-interest that the capitalists and economists love to talk about.

Interestingly humans can create multiple rationalizations and accept decision pathways favoring even the most selfless courses if it is in accord with their notion of greatest gain, even when the gain may be purely notional i.e social prestige or self esteem. Ah human unpredictability at its finest.

I will go deeper in subsequent posts....


P.S. Read Terry Pratchett's books, they provide a great insight into why atheism is so terrifying to most people.