If I would object to someone doing something, I tend not to do it. That seems to work OK as a valid basis for right and wrong as I see it.
I don’t rely on millennia old philosophy shaped by the ignorance and bigotry of a bygone age as a guide – how is a text written to cement power and privelege for a few a more valid basis for right and wrong?
I too am an atheist, and it seems simple to me. What I like to call ‘nuanced symmetry’—do unto others as you would they did unto you, making allowance of course for differences.
stuart_harrison about 10 years ago
@exoticdoc2
I am an atheist.
If I would object to someone doing something, I tend not to do it. That seems to work OK as a valid basis for right and wrong as I see it.
I don’t rely on millennia old philosophy shaped by the ignorance and bigotry of a bygone age as a guide – how is a text written to cement power and privelege for a few a more valid basis for right and wrong?
Richard Howland-Bolton Premium Member about 10 years ago
I too am an atheist, and it seems simple to me. What I like to call ‘nuanced symmetry’—do unto others as you would they did unto you, making allowance of course for differences.
becida about 10 years ago
“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” usually works well and does not require any faith.