That is correct. Each atheist chooses his own moral code of conduct. (Of course, every theist also chooses their own moral code of conduct by his choice of interpretation of the traditional code that he embraces.) The range of conduct in each of the two groups is the same: you can find evil and great people in both groups. A belief in a Creator or a non-belief does not determine a persons moral conduct. The question didn't address the issue of 'conduct'; simply whether or not you believe in a 'creator'. I added my personal belief and the source of some of my worldview as an example to spur similar posts. I can see that I should have separated the 'Poll question' from a statement of my personal beliefs. We've seen no other links from other psoters regarding their beliefs which was one of the goals of this question.
I think you just about abolished all theistic religions out there. Practical theism is all about moral conduct that the particular group of followers believe their creator has ordained for them. Also you are making assumptions that people from different belief systems agree as to what is good and what is evil. There are many adorers and devotees of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao-Tse Tung out there that see them as good and heroes even though they have the blood of millions of people on their hands. Are they good or bad? As a pure atheist you can't say. Why is your humanism better than Hitler', Stalin's, or Mao-Tse Tung sadism who were atheists like you?
"Theism" might TRY to be about 'moral conduct' but they FAIL because their edicts are so vague that they can, and do, invite any and every interpretation that each believer wants. That is why a Muslim can justify suicide bombings and a Christian can justify murdering doctors that perform abortion. On the other hand, Muslims and Christians can both lay claim to actions of charity, sympathy and caring. The philosophy of Humanism does NOT allow for such an incompatible range of actions. Humanism absolutely forbids violence in any form for any reason short of self-defense. (Self-defense does NOT include pre-emptive strikes either.) What do YOU find 'VAGUE' about the Humanist Manisfesto in terms of moral human behavior ? Nothing is vague in terms of proper behavior and every 6 year old on this planet would agree with its tenents because they are uncontaminated by the dogma of any bullshit superstitions. On another note: Why do you take your examples from the most radical of historical people? Hitler, Stalin, Mao....why didn't you include Ulysus Grant, Robert E. Lee, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and George Bush in the list ? The radicals of human history do not represent a proper code of morality and you know it. Doesn't matter: don't take ANY lessons of morality from those in the past including your parents. THEY weren't enlightened: you have no excuse.
Sometimes I think God must blind peoples eyes to his existence. If i see a painting, i know there was a painter. I dont have to see the painter to know he existed or that he was the one that painted it. If i see a building, i know there was a builder. I dont need to see the builder to know that he built it. People that dont believe in God will for some reason try to ignore common sense. How can anyone look at the complexities of any living thing and examine it down to its cells or even lower down to its DNA and say that it just happened without a creator. I mean if that was true, then how come paintings dont paint themselves? Or how come buildings dont build themselves? Paintings and buildings are so much LESS complex than any living thing. Funny thing is, that if God does blind peoples eyes to his existence, then the atheists that read this will completely not grasp anything I said, nor will they even try to think with any meaning of what i have just said. They will probably quickly try to tell me that i just dont understand science, or that I should read a book. (as if I havent read the same books they have on the subject)
I can't follow your logic. I'm having trouble seeing the distinction between an atheist making up their own morals according to their understanding and a theist making up their own morals according to their understanding.
I wasn't discussing this point. But the distinction here is that the theist believes his moral code is not according to his understanding, but according to the understanding of his creator (and is usually promulgated through some formal moral code such as a bible) while the atheist chooses his moral code or lack thereof because it appeals to him.
I wasn't even discussing humanism in my priors post, but it seems to me humanism is really your religion if you feel it has all the answers to proper behavior. I don't know how you can say that and be atheist at the same time because atheists are a varied bunch of people so you are calling all atheists that don't accept humanism infidels in a way.
Humanism is a philosophy, not a religion. I've noticed the need of some theists to define every belief system (or nonbelief in the case of atheism) that differs from theirs as "just another religion". Not everything is about religion.
I'm not confused. He is confused because he made humanism a religion by saying it has all the answers to life's problems, and he intimated that if an atheist doesn't accept humanism as his code like the three examples of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao-Tse Tung then they are off the mark as atheists. Ok, I had enough of this garbage with idiotic atheists. You guys don't want to debate, but preach your atheism. Been there done that. Enjoy your atheism rangebar, and kut2k2, and don't bother me anymore. I am sorry I made the mistake of entering your thread Rangebar. I thought you were sincere. It won't happen again.