I'm going to respond with a meme that probably says it better than I can

I feel that our basic society does a good job of shaping morals in the secular way: If you graduated kindergarten, you're halfway there.

Think for yourself, regarding each and every event, and follow your conscience. Treat others the way you would hope they treat you if you were in their situation. (Have empathy, imagine yourself in their shoes.)

Don't purposely hurt anyone, but if you do hurt someone, either out of anger or some other human emotion or knee jerk reaction, acknowledge it and apologize as soon as things cool down enough to do so, admit it and make things right.

People will usually be a good gauge as to whether your actions are morally acceptable or not, by their expressions, support or disgust, however be sure those judging you are not narrow minded bigots, as they might support disgusting behavior. Back to "think for yourself" and follow your conscience.

Ignorance can be forgiven, but you should seek knowledge, and with any new knowledge, perhaps adjust your actions accordingly. Always act consciously, not just out of habit.

My moral compass is based on empathy and compassion. My empathy and compassion is dictated not by my emotional response to something but by a sober, dispassionate belief in human rights, restorative justice and a sense of duty to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

I have always found the concept of the "weighing of the heart" in Egyptian mythology to be a lovely example of personal morality. Loosely explained, when you die your heart is weighed against Maat's feather of truth. If your heart was lighter than the feather it was returned to you and you were allowed to enter the afterlife. The heart was thought to hold a person's emotions, intellect, will and morality. The way to keep it light was to do good deeds. How did you know it was good? It made your heart "light" - you feel good about doing the deed itself. This is obviously a test of the conscience.

This is how I know I am on the right track... when I feel it within myself.

Knowing the difference between right and wrong does not require any religion.
The whole "do unto others as you would have done until you", doesn't even come from any religion.

I have found the most immoral people are the same ones who like to preach about what constitutes "morality".
I don't trust anyone who likes to tell anyone else what is "moral" and what isn't.

I base my ethics on treating others the way I want to be treated. I understand that this foundation of ethics is stated in the Bible ("Do unto others as you would have then do unto you." ), but it was not originally a biblical saying. The Bible writers borrowed it from non-biblical wisdom.

It's a good question.

For me, my morality is not conscious, meaning that I don't chose it. I just recognize it and act accordingly.

Because I know what it is to suffer, I don't want to cause another to suffer. Because I want equality under that law, I want others to have equality under the law etc...

When I was a believer, I also looked to the bible for moral guidance. Now when I look at it, I see so much immorality in its pages; and I see how morality within it changed over time. This shows that the morality of the bible could not have been set down by some unchanging, completely moral, deity. All morality comes from us; it varies by culture and changes over time.

@ReverendJohnDoe, I would like to discuss moral exceptionalism with you some time. One of my gripes with Christianity is the drive to always do the right thing. It is almost as though score keeping was going on and the effect I see is that Christians must feel like they are always falling short. "Oh well, we're all sinners." Perhaps if the culture didn't drive its adherents to such an extreme, people could just try to be a decent person without worrying if they've done enough time on the cross to measure up. Frankly I value having lots of time when I am not obsessing about morality. Yes it is important but it need not be a preoccupation. I'd much rather spend time thinking about aesthetic choices or trying to appreciate another person's point of view than to worry about how I can be morally better. I'm fine with morally good enough - and then getting on with actually experiencing this life.

I don't mean this as any kind of tirade against you, Rev. I would just be interested in exploring what you think about this moral adquacy vs moral exceptionalism issue, given your life experience. Thanks.

The Golden Rule covers it

At age four, I realized when I am nice to people, they are nice to me.

Have been an atheist since age 13 when I realized the Bible is just a book of stories written by men. I don't need an imaginary deity or book to tell me right from wrong.

Being moral and kind is a series of daily decisions. I base it on fairness and empathy for other people. Have volunteered since age 21.

Since 2006, I have been a volunteer college mentor at the high school. I help low income, first-generation (children of immigrants) apply for college and scholarships. One of my best success stories is Brenda, who won $269,445 in scholarships and grants in 2016. A senior at Wesleyan University, Brenda is becoming a medical doctor and pathologist. She wants to cure disease.

Photos:

1. Scholarship Rockstar Award, 2018, Wenatchee High School.

2. In June 2018, I took three young women I previously mentored on a hike around Icicle Gorge, WA. From left: Tammy, Vietnamese immigrant, is studying to be a neurosurgeon at Univ. of Washington. Me. Elisabet, daughter of Mexican immigrants, is becoming a medical doctor and pediatrician. Teresa, daughter of Mexican immigrants, is an accountant and community organizer for Latinos.

3. Another award from the high school, 2019.

What's right and wrong, for the most part, became obvious once I stopped wondering if something was a sin. When I no longer had to concern myself with what might or might not be offensive to god, I no longer had to agonize over whether or not something was inappropriate behavior.

It reminds me of the first time the meaning of all that really occurred to me. When a superstitious/religious person, finding out that I wasn't a theist, asked "so what stops you from stealing, raping and murdering if you don't believe the Bible" --- and I remember it catching me off guard and asking "wait . . . so is the only reason YOU don't steal, rape and murder - because it says so in a book?!" I was born instinctively knowing those things are wrong, some basic "morality" is built into most creatures when dealing with each other. Schools of fish, herds of animals, swarms of insects --- they would all slaughter each other if they didn't have natural "morality" towards each other.

Religion pulls us away from natural morality, and makes it artificial - and therefore malleable. and manipulatable.

humans usually have a moral compass based on survival of the species, which requires such a high level of cooperation that compassion is built in. individuals being unique, some have more and some have less, and there are also many environmental (and even genetic, medical and other) factors that sway us one way or the other. but the basic human condition is to be compassionate and good, even if the rules are not written down. it is, i think, that simple. i will add that knowing within oneself what is right or wrong, and acting on that knowledge, is purer than behaving according to a rulebook in fear of punishment or in hope of reward.

g

Firstly, congratulations on your realization that religion is a bunch of bunk.
Rest assured that you will have a moral compass with or without religion because morality does not derive from religious belief but instead it comes from social norms. Unless you are a sociopath you will have no problems maintaining your moral directives, in fact you may find it easier without the conflicting input from religion.
Or to put it another way.

Your moral compass comes from inside you. If you are apathetic, just follow the law. But I believe you have one already. Its what drove you away from religion...

It is mostly empathy to which both evolution and culture contribute. Occasionally your compass will exert tugs in opposing directions. That isn't a fault. Complexity happens. When it does you just have to do the best you can and live with a little moral messiness.

But I don't think we need a moral code (which is not to say we don't need a justice system). Any situation complex enough to test your innate moral balance will also test any moral decision tree one tries to invent. Besides, who says you'll make a better decision in advance and in the abstract than you will when the time comes to apply it, when the details of the situation have been filled in by actual circumstances? Plenty of eople would like to think morality is or should be an exercise in rationality. But I'm not one of them.

Jonathan Haidt has some interesting things to say about that. For me, it’s mostly based on fairness, or in other words, the golden rule. Nothing is needed other than reason to realize that if we treat each other the way we want to be treated, things will work out better for everyone.

Morality, it seems to me, is an evolutionary development resulting from the survival benefit conferred to in-group cooperation vs. individualistic, selfish behavior. Morals may be reduced to two primary behavioral principles: fairness (or reciprocity) and empathy (or sympathy). These primitive, yet unmistakable behaviors are seen in many other species, including our closest relative, the chimpanzee.

If we can agree that morality was a natural outgrowth of primitive codes that enabled the survival and flourishing of hominids that practiced such behaviors, why then is it necessary to credit an external authority many thousands of years after the fact? Did humanity really need Mt. Sinai for 'moral instruction?' Are not our morals a natural outgrowth of a clan-tribe-nation progression? Religion (much as it has everything else) co-opted existing practices and dressed them up in a false narrative of authoritative plagiarism. Taking credit for something that already exists is a lietmotif of religion.

According to theists God is morally good--morally perfect. So, what do they suppose God's moral compass is?

I can wax philosophical and get into my thoughts on free will but instead I’ll go for the short answer.

I just feel what’s right and go for it. When you were a believer you would have said god had written what is right on your heart. I forgive that sentiment somewhat in believers because that’s what it feels like. I however understand it’s true origins.
It comes from millions of years of evolution of a social species tempered by learning by osmosis as an infant and child the social rules of my particular culture. Only psychopaths have to quantify and codify such things because they cannot form the attachments necessary to feel them innately. I think the rest of us can just go by what we feel is right.

Pretty simple. Do no harm. It applies to all situations, and even when impossible, it's still the direction toward which I aim.

If it harms someone and that harm can be avoided, it's wrong... unless that prevents a greater injury (as in, this vaccination hurts but it prevents a child getting a deadly disease, or, the truth hurts but a lie will hurt more in the long run... or if I must injure or kill someone in self-defense or defense of another, and there's no other reasonable course of action).

It can be elaborated out to many degrees, but that's my basic moral compass... first, do no harm. Hippocrates got it right.

I have read some of your other posts. You have had an interesting journey. I was raised Evangelical Christian. Lived not far from the Moody Bible Institute. Attended Timber-Lee Christian Camp many times as a child. Heck, my parents even had a trailer in the family camp portion of the camp for about 5 years. I participated in the all the conferences and 'contests'. I cannot recall the name of these events... At 16, my life's ambition was to become a pastor. I was gifted in my ability to deliver the word to others. (Did very well in the 'preaching' contests - again, cannot remember the exact name of them...). Yet, there were questions, inconsistencies, and doubt. And no one could reconcile them for me. I applaud you for your courage.

My 'moral compass' has evolved over my entire life. However, I was very pleasantly surprised about 6 months ago to find an article that spoke to the '10 Humanist Commitments'. It aligned very closely with what had developed for me over my entire life. Here is an article I found about the commitments.

[thehumanist.com]

Also over time, I have taken 'And if it harm none, do what ye will' from the Wiccan philosophy but adapted to myself. Basically, 'in all things, harm none."