When it comes to morality, Freethought / Humanism require one to act within certain parameters, at least in theory.
This is granted as the very concept of morality presupposes, by definition, certain parameters, at least in theory.
But why reference “Freethought / Humanism” and why state “at least in theory”?
Seeing that the American Humanist Association is, yet again, out to prove that they have way too much money on their hands I will be 1) providing the text of the article by Jeff Jacoby, Where we “Created by God to Be Good”? (Patriot Post, November 15, 2010) and 2) beginning a series considering the ads described therein.
As December approaches Jews, Christians, Muslims, African Americans, Costanzites, etc. are looking forward to celebrating Hanukkah, Christmas, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, Festivus (as per Seinfeld’s Frank Costanza, "A Festivus, for the rest of us"), etc.
So while the preservation of the human race, at least for the sake of the children—think of the children!—is this atheist’s ultimate premise he did not answer as to why.
But why answer as to why? Why have a why? Is it not enough in and of itself?
I am not sure if you cannot identify a rhetorical device when you encounter one or if you are being sarcastic. Obviously, or so I thought, I was attempting to get you to elucidate because you did no “show” anything—you merely presented some assertions and I was asking why those assertions are valid and or upon what they were premised.
Moreover, you are incorrect in stating that “so much for the xian claim of atheists having no moral code,” this is not the claim, the claim is that you have no premise beyond your personal preferences.
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were asking in what manner I condemn them as opposed to what justification I'd use for condemning them.
Still, it's easy. The deaths of innocent children, pain and suffering, (would you want that kind of thing done to you), and then there's the fact that acts of genocide aren't really conducive to the human race's survival.
Your god set up a lot of lousy precedents in the OT which history shows that your fellow believers made use of.
Christopher Hitchens came very close to elucidating why Jesus chose to be our vicarious atonement;
Why does the British national health service never run out of blood, though you're not allowed to charge for it, you have to give it free, and it never runs out of blood?
Because people like to give blood. They want to feel useful. I like to do it, I like it very much and I'm not a masochist and I don't particularly like being stuck, but someone gains a pint and I don't lose one because I replenish it quite quickly.
How To Be Ethical Without a God: At 33:49 into part 1 Dan Barker explains his ethical viewpoint:
How can I summarize how we naturalists know how to be ethical without a God? Here it is, it's very simple. It's a principle, it's not a rule, it's a principle. If you intend to act in a way that minimizes harm by your actions in the real world, then by definition you can be called an ethical person. If you don't intend to act in a way that minimizes harm you are not ethical…