Let me confess from the outset that I am not an atheist; however, I have discussed this topic with friends who are. They stress the importance of treating others humanely for the sake and well-being of the species. Thus, their moral values often resonate with religious values that stress "love for neighbor" even though they do not subscribe to a religion. I wonder whether the points of resonation may be from the influence of religion in their family and/or culture of origin. They may have consciously rejected religion but unconsciously still embrace many of the human affirming values contained therein. Might make an interesting study.

Thank you Dr Farid, indeed you allude to secularism. I understand this as in the USA in it's 1st amendment. Perhaps its a step in the right direction if people from all over the world can come to an agreement on more universal moral codes, omitting religion from the equation.

Let me confess from the outset that I am not an atheist; however, I have discussed this topic with friends who are. They stress the importance of treating others humanely for the sake and well-being of the species. Thus, their moral values often resonate with religious values that stress "love for neighbor" even though they do not subscribe to a religion. I wonder whether the points of resonation may be from the influence of religion in their family and/or culture of origin. They may have consciously rejected religion but unconsciously still embrace many of the human affirming values contained therein. Might make an interesting study.

Regarding more universal moral codes, C. S. Lewis addresses this topic in "The Abolition of Man." In this book, he demonstrated that the great world religions and philosophies share many universal values. Perhaps if we focused more on our shared beliefs--particularly regarding the philosophical notion of ethical reciprocity (also known as The Golden Rule) that is embedded in most belief systems and world views, we would treat one another with greater dignity and respect.

Irrespective of our religious affiliations, having been created in the image of God, we have consciences and therefore have a sense of morals. This is the source of moral conduct for us all.

I suppose conscience is the main source of guidance. I certainly believe that religion is separate from what makes a human being think in the positive or negative way towards their fellow human being. There are very good people in the world who actually manifest moral standard towards their fellow beings, but neither associated any of the religious faiths. While on the contrary, the most evil deeds are perpetrated by the most purportedly and so-called religious people on earth.

I create my own moral code.

I appeal to no source, and have never done so.

I stop to speak to cats - today I helped a worm back onto some grass - it was trying to cross a baking hot pavement.

I give to charity. I eat little meat.

I ponder the utility of carbon off-setting and fly infrequently.

I do not do these things because I think that I must adhere to a 'code' - they are just the things that I do.

As an atheist, I don't hurt other people and treat them with respect. Nowadays, religion or other approaches to 'belief' are not really relevant to moral code. How do you explain religious violence - slaughtering others with respect to god? It doesn't imply 'moral conduction' in terms of people, does it? Obviously, I don't tend to hurt your feelings and beliefs, however, I honestly think religion and moral code are separate things, therefore, we should treat people with respect, love and acceptance.

Anyway, apart from people, we should also care about other animals. Does moral code in religion include that? Not necessarily - an example of northern white rhinoceros that are critically endangered/almost extinct because of people beliefs.

Kant´s categorical imperativ: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Atheists are not necessarily precluded from consulting so-called holy books to guide moral conduct; they just disagree about the source of the moral precepts found therein. However, atheists generally rely on their conscience and fellow-feeling in their day-to-day moral judgements. I would venture that most believers do that too. They don't consult their holy books for guidance in most moral deliberations; they don't first ask themselves what God would want.

There's a lot of literature in psychology on how some aspects of morality is innate in us, while others are culturally construed. People are born with some rudimentary moral codes. Religious texts are not the only source of 'moral knowledge'. History, philosophy, literature, sociology, politics etc...don't all these sources teach us so much about 'right and wrong'?