Are Atheists inherently amoral?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

User Captain Fritz raised some interesting points about the supposed amorality of atheists in the War thread. I've summarized his points with GPT below and have proposed a few counter arguments.

Christianity, by viewing humans as creations of God, inherently values all humanity, whereas atheism, lacking this divine perspective, is perceived to base human value on societal usefulness.

- *Some* Christians certainly *aspire* to a view that treats all humans as Gods' creation. The problem, of course, is that many don't regard this as central to their faith and/or fail to practice it in real life.
- There is an inherent tension between Christianity's universalizing principles and the belief that Christianity is the True faith. Many Christians throughout history had no problem justifying hate, discrimination, and conquest on the basis of spreading their version of Christianity. If I started listing examples I could go on for a while lol.
- There are many non-religious belief systems that also uphold universal values. The UN's Declaration on Human Rights is the most prominent example of a secular commitment to many of those same universal values that some Christians to to uphold. Christian philosophy no doubt underpins these codes, but it is in no way necessary to be a believing Christian to value them.

Atheistic viewpoints, focusing on survival of the fittest, potentially prioritize individual survival, sometimes at others' expense, with historical examples like Nazism and communism cited as outcomes of this mindset.

- Darwinian-derived morality isn't just cut-throat competition. It's a complex web both zero-sum competition and of kin- and group-altruism. You don't need objective universal values and a kindly creator to get moral animals: we remove free riders and psychopaths from the gene pool; high-investment parenting and friendships improve our fitness; it's a near-human universal to be attracted to partners who are generous, compassionate, just, etc.
- There are logical ways to deduce other moral codes. Consider the Golden Rule. If I apply the Copernican principle (I'm not special just because I'm me), then I have no reason to preference my own wellbeing over yours, and since I suspect you're a being just like me I know you won't accept a moral argument from me that's based on my own specialness. This framework would give you the 10 Commandments other than the silly ones about God being a jealous God lol.

Unlike Christianity, which has moral teachings against ideologies like racism and Nazism, atheism is seen as lacking inherent safeguards against such ideologies. In conflicts such as those in the Middle East, atheism is viewed as inadequate for resolution due to its perceived emphasis on tribalism and self-interest.
- One problem here is that Christianity is both a belief system and an ideology itself, one that has been used constantly to justify war, colonialism, etc. Even in these particular instances Christian organizations have failed to live up to your standard. I would say advancing the goals of Christendom was in many ways the equivalent to Nazism for many centuries - a totalizing worldview able to justify extreme harm to supposed outsiders on the basis of creating an eternal and ideologically-pure society. The Catholic Church as a whole sided with the Nazis, although they love to dwell instead on the few reformers who resisted. Russian Orthodoxy fully supports the Putin regime.
- Secular societies have created all sorts of working safeguards against ideological extremism. The Bible does not lay out the case for free speech, representative government, independent scientific and government statistical institutions, modern legal institutions, etc., yet these are the things that reliably prevent ideological extremes.

Christianity is highlighted for its unique commandment to love all individuals equally and self-sacrificially, extending even to wrongdoers, promoting kindness and compassion.

- I agree this is what Jesus taught. But the problem again is the duality of Christian belief. On the one hand, there are believers who truly try to live up to a vision of universal love and understanding. On the other hand, belief in the Truth of their religion immediately creates outsiders and perverse consequentialist modes of thinking (e.g., if I invade country X and kill only 5% of the population, with the result that it becomes a Christian nation, is God happy or sad?)

The significant role of Christianity in founding charities, hospitals, and humanitarian organizations is attributed to its principle of selfless love and service to others.
- One very positive thing about religious practice in general is that it does seem to make people more charitable. And it's not just for parochial or wasteful religious-based charities either - religious folks also give more to non-religious charities. Secular societies have failed to create institutions that make people as jazzed about charitable giving. Whether this is truly moral though is an interesting question. The practice of giving is certainly moral and doing it often probably does make one a more moral person. But if the giving is self-serving to appease God, buy passage to heaven, gain status within a particular religious community, etc., then it seems less clear cut.

[CaptainFritz28]

I appreciate the ability to hold a more formal debate on this subject, so first of all, thanks, Bert.
Also, I must clarify that my point here is not that all Atheists are inherently more immoral than all Christians, but that the worldview of Atheism is inherently amoral, and that the worldview of Christianity is inherently better and moral.

For the purpose of clarity, I'll be numbering each contention in the format
A)
1)
2)
3)
with A) being the underlined and bolded claims, and 1), 2), and 3) being the bullet points.
Here we go.

A)
1) & 2) The actions and beliefs of individual Christians often do not reflect the religion itself. Many Christians do evil things. That does not mean the religion is flawed. Inherently, the Bible commands Christians to love all, even their enemies. Christians still are flawed and sinful, and Christianity does not make them perfect, but it does almost always make them quite a lot better than they would have been. Atheism, however, does not have an inherent moral standard or set of commands, meaning that the actions of individuals are a reflection of that lack of morality. This may seem like a double standard, but it is merely the grounds on which Atheism places itself.
3) "Christian philosophy no doubt underpins these codes, but it is in no way necessary to be a believing Christian to value them." That is precisely my point. This is a debate about the inherent values of each belief structure. Codes like this only exist because of things inherent to Christianity. Because Atheism does not have a moral structure of its own, it often takes from other worldviews, and this is a case of it taking from Christianity. Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day, but that doesn't mean it isn't a broken clock.

B)
1) Ultimately, the purpose of all of this is to benefit oneself. In Diplomacy, alliances are made. But those alliances are not made for the purposes of benefitting everyone as much as possible. Rather, they are made by each individual intending to gain as much as possible themselves, and seeing that the best way to do so is by teaming up. Also, from a Christian standpoint I would contend that the attraction to a compassionate, kind, and loving partner is an intended one of God's beautiful design. From an Atheistic standpoint, its only good because it benefits the individual. Hence, divorce rates are much, much higher in Atheistic marriages than in Christian ones.
2) Those other ways to derive morality come from Christian principles. Notably, Copernicus was a Christian, and based his theory on the Christian principle that all are created equally, and that no man is more valuable than another simply because of their perspective. This is a Biblical principle, inherently Christian and inherently not Atheist. The Ten Commandments are unique because the only way to have them is with an authority higher than humans. The only reason that it is a moral imperative not to murder is because some power with more authority than us has told us as much. You can base this off of what society or the government or an individual says, but then your moral code is constantly shifting, and it is not a solid moral code like the Ten Commandments.

C)
1) There was a whole reformation against the Catholic Church, mostly because of their throwing out of Biblical principles in favor of their own ideas. People will try to skew Christianity to justify their own wrongdoing, but that doesn't mean that the religion is flawed. I am a Protestant, and I believe that the Bible is the only standard to base Christianity upon. Catholicism, especially back then, held that the Pope and the Church held just as much authority as the Bible, which is heretical. If one looked back through the history of the Catholic Church, the Bible would condemn more than a few of the actions they did. In the Nazi rise to power, the Catholic Church broke almost immediately to the whims of Hitler, and it was only Christians that truly believed the Bible, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who stood against the evil done by their regime. Again, this is a matter of inherent principles. Atheism has nothing inherently wrong with what the Catholic Church did, since it does not have a moral standard. It all comes down to the individual or what society believes. Right now, society condemns the actions of the Catholic Church through history, but under Atheism, society could change their opinion on it as quickly as I can say "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" Under Christianity, no matter what, what the Catholic Church did will always be wrong.
2) Notably all brought about by men who believed in the Christian principle that all are created equal, men such as John Adams, who said that "Our (The U.S.'s) Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The ideas of the modern West, such as free speech, representative government, and criminal justice came from Biblical ideas. The Founding Fathers of America quoted the Bible more than anything else. Other western nations followed America's example. Now, with a shift away from Christianity, look at the state of our governments. Last year, over 6,000 people were put in jail for things they said on social media in Britain. That's not free speech. In America, corruption in the government, and fraudulent elections (Although I'm not citing the 2020 POTUS election here), are at an all time high. That's not representative government. When Atheism is the form of our government, rights are lost, and the wants of individual politicians becomes the driving force for laws.
Also, if we want to talk about social reform, no worldview has anywhere NEAR the record of social reform as Christianity. The abolition of slavery, rights for all races, rights for women, equal treatment of all classes regardless of wealth. These are all social reforms brought about because of Christians believing in Christian principles, found in the Bible.

D)
1) "I agree this is what Jesus taught." That's all we need to agree on for this one. Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15) Those Christians who do evil are not being true to Christianity. As for creating outsiders, every religion does that. Atheism does that. Atheism's outsiders, however, are the weak and the poor. Christianity's outsiders are the immoral and the evil. And yet, even those outsiders may be brought in at no cost. The only requirement to be a Christian is that you repent of your sin, ask forgiveness for it, and admit that Christ is Lord and that He died and rose again to save you from eternal damnation. That's it. The only outsiders are those who refuse the free gift of salvation to do evil. Take Hamas as an example. I wish for every member of that organization to come to Christ, repent of their actions, and live in eternity with God. But if they will not, then I wish them dead, so that they may no longer perform evil.
Pure consequentialism is an issue, and is only part of Christian thinking. The Bible stipulates that the action itself is just as important as the outcome. The ends do not justify the means. Invading a country is not a Christian thing to do, because there are other ways to convert people to Christ. Take, for example, every missionary that ever went to a people group that had not heard the Gospel. Often, the missionary is killed. Often, another takes their place, and the people group sees, through the sacrificial love of the first, the love of Christ. THAT is what the Bible would have us do, not invade a country. Ever heard of the story of Nate Saint and Jim Elliot? I suggest you take a look at it. It's rather fascinating. That's just one of thousands of examples of Christians who gave up their life for others' souls.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/slain-in-the-shadow-of-the-almighty

E)
1) Christians are commanded to do good to others. Atheists have no such command. Therefore, Christians are going to be more charitable. Christians give (and I can't speak for all, but I can for every Christian I've met) based on this commandment. The driving force of it all is the Biblical mandate to love others and to give aid to those who need it.
Luke 6:35 - (Jesus speaking) "...Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return..."
Galatians 6:10 - "So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people..."
1 Thessalonians 5:15 - "See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people."
2 Thessalonians 3:13 - "But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good."
Dozens more verses say the same. The Bible gives a command to do good where possible, and the what you observe here are the effects of it.
As for the giving being self-preserving and the access to Heaven, well...that's a heresy. Ephesians 2:8-9 states, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Other verses say the same. Salvation is not a result of works. It is a result of a free gift.

It would not be right of me to end this without a clear presentation of the Gospel.
You, Bert, and I, and everyone else have disobeyed God's commandments, and cannot be perfect. We are all sinners, and thus fall short of God's standard of Holiness (Romans 3:23). The result of this is eternal death (Romans 6:23). And yet, the gift of God is eternal life, as while we were sinners, rebels against God, He sent his son to die for us, and rise again as payment for our sin (Romans 5:8, John 3:16). All we must do to receive this gift of salvation, eternal life, is to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in the resurrection (Romans 10:9-10). Nothing else is necessary. It is entirely a free gift, entirely an undeserving gift, and yet entirely a gift given to us regardless, simply because of God's love for us. This is why Christians show love to others. It is because of the immense love that God showed to us.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm not giving a short response because I'm trying to be dismissive, but rather because I think I can summarize usefully here and try to keep us focused on an intelligible list of issues. If I'm misrepresenting anything or dropped a point you think is useful of course feel free to raise it again!

- I don't think you get to judge Christianity on the basis of what would happen if every Christian were a strict adherent to your exact interpretation of the Bible. Firstly, you don't get a coherent ethical framework from the Bible (hence the many denominations of Christianity). Secondly, anyone can make up a perfect moral code and then say "see, if everyone just did this the world will be perfect" - what about Christianity in particular makes it different from some secular moral code that advocates similar morals? What matters is how does Christian belief affects the morality of living human beings - I think you'd agree the record is mixed.

- We could go back-and-forth forever on the chicken-and-egg question of whether Christian belief is responsible for other desirable aspects of Western culture. I get the impression you're from a social group that might really love to claim that their culture is the wellspring of all goodness in broader society. I'd submit to you that the two things (Christianity and other Western cultural markers) are inseparable and it's not necessarily intelligible to say that one is the source of the other. Nearly every Western intellectual for hundreds of years at least pretended to be Christian, but their thoughts and reflections are not inherently Christian even when they're inspired by religious themes. Christianity itself is deeply affected by the cultures it developed in and those it operates in.

- "Also, if we want to talk about social reform, no worldview has anywhere NEAR the record of social reform as Christianity. The abolition of slavery, rights for all races, rights for women, equal treatment of all classes regardless of wealth. These are all social reforms brought about because of Christians believing in Christian principles, found in the Bible." This is just factually wrong and probably reflects some pro-Christian bias in your social group / preferred sources. Christians permitted and encouraged slavery too. Christians persecuted women like crazy and many churches still hold views about women I find to be backwards. Even when the reforms happen, it's hard to say they were "Christian" in the sense that nearly everyone back then (say, early civil rights era) was a Christian and/or would have been influenced by Christian themes - you don't get to selectively take credit for the good stuff.

- It sounds like you have very strong views about who is Christian and what Christianity demands. I'll just point out that the religion splintering into hundreds of denominations suggests that you don't get the last word on this. "Just do exactly what Jesus would do" is not the straightforward moral guidance you characterize it to be - it's subject to multiple interpretations, competing values, and is difficult to apply to all sorts of modern moral quandaries.

- I command all atheists to love one another. Now that I've done that, all atheists must follow that moral code and, if they fail to, then they're not true atheist. Therefore, atheism is a perfect moral code and only fails when it's bastardized. You see why this line of reasoning isn't compelling just because you replace the word atheist with Christian right?

[Octavious]

look at the state of our governments. Last year, over 6,000 people were put in jail for things they said on social media in Britain. That's not free speech.

Indeed not, but nor is it true. It is a small point in what is for the most part an interesting piece of writing that I intend to respond to properly later, but it is so far removed from reality that it's shining like a beacon. Where on earth did you hear such a bizarre notion?

It is possible to go to gaol for social media posts. I believe that one of the crimes that has the potential to do so is persistently encouraging people to self harm, or long term and threatening online stalking. But I suspect the number is closer to 6 than 6,000

[learnedSloth]

- I command all atheists to love one another. Now that I've done that, all atheists must follow that moral code and, if they fail to, then they're not true atheist. Therefore, atheism is a perfect moral code and only fails when it's bastardized.

This doesn't work because they have no reason to consider you a moral authority.

[CaptainFritz28]

look at the state of our governments. Last year, over 6,000 people were put in jail for things they said on social media in Britain. That's not free speech.

Indeed not, but nor is it true. It is a small point in what is for the most part an interesting piece of writing that I intend to respond to properly later, but it is so far removed from reality that it's shining like a beacon. Where on earth did you hear such a bizarre notion?

It is possible to go to gaol for social media posts. I believe that one of the crimes that has the potential to do so is persistently encouraging people to self harm, or long term and threatening online stalking. But I suspect the number is closer to 6 than 6,000

Perhaps it was 6,000 fines given for social media posts. I am not certain the exact numbers, and I don't particularly remember where I heard that. But I do know that free speech laws, in the U.S. somewhat but especially in Europe, are becoming more and more restrictive.

[CaptainFritz28]

look at the state of our governments. Last year, over 6,000 people were put in jail for things they said on social media in Britain. That's not free speech.

Indeed not, but nor is it true. It is a small point in what is for the most part an interesting piece of writing that I intend to respond to properly later, but it is so far removed from reality that it's shining like a beacon. Where on earth did you hear such a bizarre notion?

It is possible to go to gaol for social media posts. I believe that one of the crimes that has the potential to do so is persistently encouraging people to self harm, or long term and threatening online stalking. But I suspect the number is closer to 6 than 6,000

Perhaps it was 6,000 fines given for social media posts. I am not certain the exact numbers, and I don't particularly remember where I heard that. But I do know that free speech laws, in the U.S. somewhat but especially in Europe, are becoming more and more restrictive.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/25/uk-placed-in-third-tier-in-global-index-of-free-expression

[Johnny Big Horse]

A)
1) & 2) The actions and beliefs of individual Christians often do not reflect the religion itself. Many Christians do evil things. That does not mean the religion is flawed. Inherently, the Bible commands Christians to love all, even their enemies. Christians still are flawed and sinful, and Christianity does not make them perfect, but it does almost always make them quite a lot better than they would have been. Atheism, however, does not have an inherent moral standard or set of commands, meaning that the actions of individuals are a reflection of that lack of morality. This may seem like a double standard, but it is merely the grounds on which Atheism places itself.
3) "Christian philosophy no doubt underpins these codes, but it is in no way necessary to be a believing Christian to value them." That is precisely my point. This is a debate about the inherent values of each belief structure. Codes like this only exist because of things inherent to Christianity. Because Atheism does not have a moral structure of its own, it often takes from other worldviews, and this is a case of it taking from Christianity. Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day, but that doesn't mean it isn't a broken clock.

On this point, I think you are not stressing this enough, or missing it. Christianity gives us something to strive for, an unreachable goal to be perfect, virtuous, and loving towards all. We are imperfect to varying degrees, but we are given a standard to measure ourselves against. Atheism gives nothing of this sort, and you end up with moral decay, drug addiction, breaking down of families, violence, and all sorts of other crap that is detrimental to all of us. If we all had some sort of exemplar to be like, and if that exemplar were good, then society would better hold together, and I think, we would all be happier.

[Johnny Big Horse]

Some atheists are realizing that by throwing out religion, they were shooting themselves in the foot. There was some good in religion, even though they may disagree with the fables, ceremonies, and historical atrocities.

Good things include: constant reminder to be virtuous, community where status doesn't matter and all people are on an equal level being imperfect, shoot, I forget the rest.

But there is a book I read about this, Religion for Atheists, where some Atheists have tried to recapture some the good that they lost when they cast out religion.

Here is a link to the writer's webpage.
https://www.alaindebotton.com/religion/

[CaptainFritz28]

A)
1) & 2) The actions and beliefs of individual Christians often do not reflect the religion itself. Many Christians do evil things. That does not mean the religion is flawed. Inherently, the Bible commands Christians to love all, even their enemies. Christians still are flawed and sinful, and Christianity does not make them perfect, but it does almost always make them quite a lot better than they would have been. Atheism, however, does not have an inherent moral standard or set of commands, meaning that the actions of individuals are a reflection of that lack of morality. This may seem like a double standard, but it is merely the grounds on which Atheism places itself.
3) "Christian philosophy no doubt underpins these codes, but it is in no way necessary to be a believing Christian to value them." That is precisely my point. This is a debate about the inherent values of each belief structure. Codes like this only exist because of things inherent to Christianity. Because Atheism does not have a moral structure of its own, it often takes from other worldviews, and this is a case of it taking from Christianity. Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day, but that doesn't mean it isn't a broken clock.

On this point, I think you are not stressing this enough, or missing it. Christianity gives us something to strive for, an unreachable goal to be perfect, virtuous, and loving towards all. We are imperfect to varying degrees, but we are given a standard to measure ourselves against. Atheism gives nothing of this sort, and you end up with moral decay, drug addiction, breaking down of families, violence, and all sorts of other crap that is detrimental to all of us. If we all had some sort of exemplar to be like, and if that exemplar were good, then society would better hold together, and I think, we would all be happier.

I agree. I'm trying to take it one step at a time, though.

[kestasjk]

I think religion works well for a lot of people and that's great. As long as you don't push your beliefs on others / judge others I think do what works for you.

No -ist is inherently immoral.

[Jamiet99uk]

The main problem here, Fritz, is that you are treating Atheism as a moral code, and providing some critical analysis of whether it is an effective moral code.

Atheism is not a moral code. It is not a religion. It does not purport to be a moral code.

To be an Atheist is to think that there is no God. That's all.

You're comparing Atheism to Christianity. That is not a valid comparison.

A more valid comparison is Atheism vs Theism. However, you have recently said, in another thread that led us here, that you regard all religions other than Christianity as being morally wrong. So it seems to me that you're actually trying to have a debate entitled "Are all non-Christians inherently wrong about everything?"....

[Jamiet99uk]

Some atheists are realizing that by throwing out religion, they were shooting themselves in the foot.

I'm an Atheist. I haven't "thrown out" anything.

I do not understand the concept of God.

I cannot conceive of any such being existing.

I am not willing to base my morals or beliefs on the basis of something I don't think exists.

That's it.

[Johnny Big Horse]

Some atheists are realizing that by throwing out religion, they were shooting themselves in the foot.

I'm an Atheist. I haven't "thrown out" anything.

I do not understand the concept of God.

I cannot conceive of any such being existing.

I am not willing to base my morals or beliefs on the basis of something I don't think exists.

That's it.

Yah Jamiet, I get that argument, and I have no problems with it. It is a good argument. Damn it!

But, I maintain that the Church did provide some good schooling and a framework with which to see our lives and our place in the world.

God or no God, the Church, and other religious institutions for that matter, they need not be Christian, used to constantly tell us how to be good people. The seven deadly sins of the middle ages were painted on walls, depicted on hymnals, placed in sermons, all to emphasize how to live a good life... here they for the hell of it.

We ignore these lessons today, and our societies are crumbling as a result.

Lust: Excessive or inappropriate sexual desire, often considered impure or immoral.
Gluttony: Overindulgence in food or drink, usually to the point of waste or excess.
Greed (Avarice): An excessive desire for material wealth or possessions, often at the expense of others.
Sloth (Acedia): Apathy or laziness, both physically and spiritually, resulting in neglect of one's duties or responsibilities.
Wrath (Anger): Intense, uncontrollable anger or hatred towards others, often leading to violence or harm.
Envy: Jealousy or resentment towards the possessions, success, or qualities of others.
Pride (Vanity): Excessive self-esteem, arrogance, or a belief in one's superiority over others.

It would be great if we taught that in schools now. But we don't. We don't teach virtue anymore because we have secularized society.

The purpose of de Botton's book is not to make you a Christian, but instead to fill some voids that the absence of a community of believers can provide. Those atheist churches he writes about... those people remain atheist.

[Johnny Big Horse]

The main problem here, Fritz, is that you are treating Atheism as a moral code, and providing some critical analysis of whether it is an effective moral code.

Atheism is not a moral code. It is not a religion. It does not purport to be a moral code.

To be an Atheist is to think that there is no God. That's all.

You're comparing Atheism to Christianity. That is not a valid comparison.

A more valid comparison is Atheism vs Theism. However, you have recently said, in another thread that led us here, that you regard all religions other than Christianity as being morally wrong. So it seems to me that you're actually trying to have a debate entitled "Are all non-Christians inherently wrong about everything?"....

You are very smart Jamiet, and you make great arguments.

Atheism is not a moral code. Correct. The problem is that there is NO moral code, which leads to problems.

Your second paragraph is really good. I would like to see a response to that.

[Jamiet99uk]

The fact that atheism does not provide a moral code does not mean that atheists cannot have a moral code. I have morals, I just don't get them from the instructions of some purported deity.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

On this point, I think you are not stressing this enough, or missing it. Christianity gives us something to strive for, an unreachable goal to be perfect, virtuous, and loving towards all. We are imperfect to varying degrees, but we are given a standard to measure ourselves against. Atheism gives nothing of this sort, and you end up with moral decay, drug addiction, breaking down of families, violence, and all sorts of other crap that is detrimental to all of us. If we all had some sort of exemplar to be like, and if that exemplar were good, then society would better hold together, and I think, we would all be happier.

I want to make clear that I really respect what many Christians aspire to. But if it really boils down to loving kindness and following the Golden Rule, then Christians certainly don't have a monopoly on this. Most world religions teach the same basic principles:

Christianity: Often summarized as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matthew 7:12).

Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man" (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a).

Islam: "None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself" (Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad).

Buddhism: "Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udana-Varga 5:18).

Hinduism: "This is the sum of duty: Do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you" (Mahabharata 5:1517).

Sikhism: "I am a stranger to no one, and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all" (Guru Granth Sahib, p. 1299).

Bahá'í Faith: "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself" (Bahá'u'lláh, Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh).

Confucianism: "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself" (Analects 15:24).

Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss" (T'ai Shang Kan Yin P'ien).

Jainism: "In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self" (Lord Mahavira).

Sufism: "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart" (Mawlana Rumi).

Zoroastrianism: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself" (Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5).

Add to this the many ways that agnostics, atheists, and others without a defined faith tradition to come to the same conclusion about the Golden Rule. Humanists prioritize human reason and compassion. A utilitarian would likely come to the conclusion that universal respect and kindness maximizes human flourishing. Kant laid out a compelling case that any morally-coherent person must treat others how they'd like to be treated in the same circumstance.

Moreover, it's not obvious you need any moral framework at all to be a kind and loving person. Moral people are intrinsically motivated to do good for themselves and others - if they do it for some other reason, are they truly moral? It's very interesting to me that some hold the view that, if the Christian God weren't lurking in the background, they'd just go around murdering, stealing, and taking hard drugs - that sounds like the opposite of genuine morality.

Besides, I think you'd be hard pressed to pin rising crime and drug use on a lack of Christian faith. These things only look correlated if you take a parochial view of select Western countries in the past 50ish years. Any other framing (different time periods, different countries) suggests that mass religiosity is not a panacea for social disorder and immoral behavior. There are very clearly other factors that at play (IMO, heightened economic insecurity plays a huge role).

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

- I command all atheists to love one another. Now that I've done that, all atheists must follow that moral code and, if they fail to, then they're not true atheist. Therefore, atheism is a perfect moral code and only fails when it's bastardized.

This doesn't work because they have no reason to consider you a moral authority.

I wonder, who do Christians view as a moral authority?

The obvious answer, God/Jesus, really isn't a satisfying one. If I pray to Jesus and ask "should I give to a charity that helps stray dogs, or one that helps stray cats?" I'm liable to get a different answer than you would if you had prayed on the same topic. If I seek out a more learned religious authority for the answer, I would need to pick one out of 100s of human-run Christian institutions, each of which might give me a different answer. If I go straight to scripture, I'm liable to misinterpret, misunderstand, or cherry pick an answer, or I'll find conflicting values in the Bible that are irreconcilable.

The deeper point here is that, if your moral system requires a moral authority then it might not be truly moral. These appeal to authorities seem to me like a long-winded way to justify a moral choice that you yourself are making. Ultimately you are the moral agent, and whether your action is good or bad can't depend on whether or not God ordained it, because what matters is the action's impact on you and other moral agents. If God himself commanded me to do something evil, that evil would still be evil.

[Jamiet99uk]

- I command all atheists to love one another. Now that I've done that, all atheists must follow that moral code and, if they fail to, then they're not true atheist. Therefore, atheism is a perfect moral code and only fails when it's bastardized.

This doesn't work because they have no reason to consider you a moral authority.

I have no reason to consider "God" a moral authority.

Esquire Bert, on the other hand, is the first badger (or meerkat?) I have ever seen, who can read, write, and speak English. This apparent miracle is making me consider following his commandments.

[CaptainFritz28]

- I command all atheists to love one another. Now that I've done that, all atheists must follow that moral code and, if they fail to, then they're not true atheist. Therefore, atheism is a perfect moral code and only fails when it's bastardized.

This doesn't work because they have no reason to consider you a moral authority.

I have no reason to consider "God" a moral authority.

Esquire Bert, on the other hand, is the first badger (or meerkat?) I have ever seen, who can read, write, and speak English. This apparent miracle is making me consider following his commandments.

So then, you are creating a cult around Bert, making him your moral authority. No longer is that Atheism.