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 over 9 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 over 9 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 over 9 years ago
“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” usually works well and does not require any faith.