100.40 year Atheist said …

Atheism comes with no moral code attached.

A redundant point.

So any moral code which an Atheist might have must come either from personal subjective invention, or it comes from the personal subjective invention of another Atheist and has been coopted.

This is simply untrue. I can understand that you have no concept of objectivity due to the inherent subjectivism of the theistic position. However, atheists have no such trouble and have access to truly objective moral codes as a result.

It is possible to coopt the Judeo-Christian moral code,

Why would we want your inherently subjective moral code which teaches that might makes right and that what is moral is subject to the whim of your deity?

while rejecting the moral authority which gives that code its teeth.

Please give evidence that your “moral authority” actually exists. Until such time as you do, the teeth you claim back up your moral code are a badly fitting mish mash of dentures that you’ve stolen and borrowed in order to frighten the credulous whenever you

So the challenge here is for any or all Atheists to share your personal moral code, and then to defend it however you choose to do so.

As you’ve been told already, this isn’t true. I believe the actual challege here is for theists to give evidence for the existence of their deity. Should you wish to challenge atheists to share and defend their moral code(s) then I suggest you set up your own forum to do so. When you do maybe atheists will wander over and answer the questions you have posed. If you don’t want to do that then you should not be surprised when they are ignored as the pathetic attempt to derail the topic that they so clearly are.

Atheism comes with no moral code attached. So any moral code which an Atheist might have must come either from personal subjective invention, or it comes from the personal subjective invention of another Atheist and has been coopted. It is possible to coopt the Judeo-Christian moral code, while rejecting the moral authority which gives that code its teeth.

So the challenge here is for any or all Atheists to share your personal moral code, and then to defend it however you choose to do so.

How do you define “morals”?

What are your top ten principles for your own behaviors and attitudes?

What are your top ten principles for the behavior of others?

How many Atheists share your moral code in all aspects?

How do you define “good” and “bad”?

Is there an external, physical basis for your definitions of “good” and “bad”, and if so what is it?

Are “character” traits featured in your moral code? For yourself? For others?

What, if any, consequences attach to the failure to live to your moral code?

“Evidently, Asstrophysicist has been “laboring” here this whole time without understanding what a “sock puppet” is, in this context.”

I thought as much, too. But, nobody can be that dumb. I figured it must be an act to separate himself from sock-puppetry.

We conclude atheism is no different than Raëlism, Ordre du Temple Solaire or Branch Davidians.

WOW. I just have to shake my head. Xenon, are you truly that thick?
These are BELIEF systems, just like CHRISTIANITY is a BELIEF system. These guys are in your corner – And we might as well include the Mormons, JWs, Phelps Baptists on your side also. Like you, they all have faith that there’s an invisible god looking over and caring about you.
Atheism, on the other hand, is a lack of a belief system in a god, any god.

Again, though, they try to equate atheism with a belief system.

“I can go with that. We can vote in Lou(DFW)as Raël?”

No, because no matter the number of your sock-puppets, you get only one vote.

“That would complete the comparison. There we have it. Lou(Raël) is the new sock for DFW. If he can believe in a creation with no creator, UFOs certainly are no stretch.”

Started Friday night happy hour early, have you?

I can go with that. We can vote in Lou(DFW)as Raël?

That would complete the comparison. There we have it. Lou(Raël) is the new sock for DFW. If he can believe in a creation with no creator, UFOs certainly are no stretch.

“The reason belief in God is not a delusion is because the rationale believers recognize the evidence that the atheists will not.”

No matter how many times you try, you cannot redefine delusion.

“Atheists parrot the same tired old lines of Richard Dawkins because they cannot think rationally on their own.”

You are a liar. I was an atheist decades before I ever heard of Dawkins.

“Someone above pointed out that no psychiatric organization recognizes theism as a delusion. What we have is a small minority insisting the majority believe as they do or they are deluded. Other groups have done the same.”

No, we have a few morons like you who attempt to re-frame delusion as only being a psychiatric disorder, not simply a belief in something for which there’s no evidence.

“We conclude atheism is no different than Raëlism, Ordre du Temple Solaire or Branch Davidians.”

And we conclude from the obvious evidence that you presented that you are an idiot.

It would be so easy for your to drop the pretense and simply post your evidence but you can’t, so you don’t. Instead you post red-herrings and diversions.

Again, show your evidence for your god. You claim it exists, then prove it but with something that is unique and assignable to only your god, not some other equally fictitious imaginary friend.