Some quick thoughts, now.

The refrain that I heard was that 'atheism' is not a worldview.  See point #6.  

Nonetheless, it is a significant component of the full worldview, as obviously belief in God would be.  For definition's sake, if you'll pardon the redundancy, a 'worldview' is the overall all belief about what reality is.  Or, more directly, a world view is how we view the world.

My opinion is that we ought to try to create a worldview that best conforms to the way things really are.  This would make me a 'realist.'  So, it would be nice to say that humans are filled with potential- but even in agreeing with that I'd have to admit they are filled with as much potential to bad as they are good, and human history is replete with the bad things manifested.  So, our worldview ought to account for this reality, not ignore it, or hope it was some other way, or merely assert that its not that way.

Communism is only invoked as an example of what happens when this principle fact of existence is ignored.  Communism was a very optimistic view of the world and man's place in it, and man in particular.  It sprung from a number of streams, one of which was atheism, another of which was secular humanism, another would be evolution and philosophic materialism, yet another would be anti-capitalism.  In none of these streams was a positive recognition that humans need checks and balances because of the simple fact about how humans ARE.  

Consequently, no matter how noble, high, optimistic, and good intentioned communism was, we could have predicted it was going to go south.

Ayn Rand said in the preface of her book, Anthem:

"Some might think- though I don't- that nine years ago there was some excuse for men not to see the direction in which the world was going.  Today, the evidence is so blatant that no excuse can be claimed by anyone any longer.  Those who refuse to see it now are neither blind nor innocent.

The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default;  the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word;  the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need no be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one's eyes shut.  They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing:  "But I didn't mean this!" {emphasis hers}" Ayn Rand, Anthem, foreword, 1946

I don't think I could have said it better.  Ironically, Rand's solution is to posit that humans have worth, without attempting to establish that basis in some sort of non-arbitrary framework.  You need a non-arbitrary framework (at least that YOU reside within) or else there is no reason to compel others to share the same view.  But I think its better to RECOGNIZE that humans have worth, but that's different then a postulation.

Anyway, this should be enough to jump start that conversation- hopefully this time while on focus.

You gotta dig into the historical sources to know if you've got something there or not.  Anti-capitalism certainly was a big problem.  As far as I know, an association between 'anti-capitalists' and 'Christians' existed, if it did at all, mainly in Russia.  Other than that, I can think of nothing in the primary sources to support this assertion of yours.  Certainly China's communism, which was rooted in Confuscianism and Buddhism, was not specifically reacting to rich Christians.  

Actually, what the primary sources strongly suggest is that communism became anti-religious because of the belief that religion was the mark of an ignorant person.  Ignorant, specifically, of the 'advances' in science illustrating- they thought- the illusion of the whole thing.  Thus, Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses, the state's way of controlling the dopes.  Real education would help people cope with the real world.

Also, religion was a threat because it put people's attention on things other then the 'community.'  In order for communism to work, everyone would have to have the same 'noble' goal.  Religion was obviously not the only diversion like that.

Finally, religion belonged with other topics in another category. That is, the cosmic waste of time and resources.  You saw this with Pol Pot in Cambodia, especially, when they'd inspect a person's hands to see if they were worth any respect.  If their hands were unscarred and unweathered, they were probably the indoctrinated educated class who didn't do anything of substance to contribute to the 'cause.'  If their hands showed the sign of work, they'd get respect and deference.  The difference between the two was not minor.  People with smooth hands could be shot on the spot.  Priests, pastors, philosophers and academics all suffered the same fate.

None of this is 'my opinion.'  You can study the history yourself to see.

"Since this is a (poorly) veiled attack at atheism, yet again, and not really about communism at all"

Ragnar, for you to say this reveals that you really are not comprehending the argument.  Go back and look at Cimic's summary of my argument.  There is OBVIOUSLY a connection between communism and atheism.  This is undeniable.  It doesn't mean that communism NECESSARILY follows.  The purpose of the discussion is in the realm of 'no true believers in no-god' to match Harry's conversation.

I'm looking for an objective way, given the fact that you think you have the correct worldview, and it excludes God and it includes evolution, and probably a number of other things, for you to OBJECTIVELY say where the commies went bad.

"here is my answer to the charge that one can not have an objective code of ethics within atheism. Again."

I didn't make that charge.  Neither did Cimics.  Your answer to the problem of the thread may very well be to invoke an objective code of ethics, but that doesn't mean the thread 'charged' you can't.

Look, none of you are going to be able to answer this unless you stop taking it so personally.  Really, I have never seen a more sensitive group of people as atheists.

"First, we must define what is good and what is evil. At its most basic level, good is that which contributes to one's life, evil is that which negates life. I suppose these are assumptions. If you can not agree with these assumptions, then we really can not proceed."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no such thing as an objective assumption.   How are you going to get to 'an objective code of morals and ethics' by first requiring subjective assent to assumptions?

I am not going to agree or disagree.  In order for this to rise to objectivity, which is your solution to the thread's problem, then you have to justify your definition itself as not being merely arbitrary.  I'm not saying that you can't do it- I'm only saying that you HAVE to do it if you want to have such an 'objective standard.'

Basically, look at what you've got.  You've got us agreeing to some basic premises that you think are reasonable.

What if I say, "Let's all agree that good is what contributes to the life of society and bad which detracts from it." ?  I've employed your same approach.  SHouldn't it follow that those who follow from these same assumptions are acting as 'objectively' as you want to say you are?

"Reason is not automatic. Humans must choose to use reason. Reality demands it. In order to survive, humans must find a way to deal with reality, or perish."

This all seems to be pretty contradictory.  Reality demands we use reason but reason is not automatic?  Humans have to deal with reality or they'll die, but they have to choose to use it?

"Ethics do not come from God, they are a necessity of reality and the nature of life."

Sounds like atheism is trying to fight for th eright to qualify for a full blooded worldview.  :)

"Everything a human needs must be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort."

Is this an assumption as well?

"Thinking and rational thought do not come from outside of ourselves, they come from within. You can choose to look outside yourself for answers, or you can choose to think and reason on your own. The person who does not think is not a human, they are merely an animal acting on someone else's whim."

Cripes.  Look at what you're saying.

Let me ask you a question.  Do you think its wrong to kill animals?

"The thief or dictator does not use reason to support his survival. He uses brute force, like an animal."

But what about the rest of the population that refuses to think for themselves?  Also parasites, right?

"The same is true of the person who spends his life doing what he is told, and survives only by means of what other people have accomplished."

Yep, parasites.  Shouldn't the end appropriately portioned out for the theif and dictator be the same end allotted to the average parasite?

"The counterpoint to communism is capitalism, not Christianity."

As much as I agreed with some of your other stuff, this statement is mainly false.  I agree the counterpoint to communism is not Christianity, but capitalism is NOT the counterpoint to communism.  Capitalism really is mainly just an economic system, while communism is a whole new emodiment about how to look at the world.  While there are philosophical underpinnings to capitalism, as there are just about anything, there is not a 1-1 correspondence between these underpinnings with the underpinnings of communism.  They draw from completely different sources.

I'm well prepared to support this contention, if anyone really cared to be moved by the primary literature.  I'm not holding my breath.

"Communism replaces God with "society." Capitalist, or objectivist, atheists replace God with the individual. Communism is actually closer to Christianity than Objectivism. Both Communism and Christianity place more importance on something "greater" than the individual. Objectivism says there is nothing more important than the individual."

Yes, communism make the society the highest ideal at the expense of the individual.  In that sense, and that sense alone can you say that Christianity and Communism are 'closer to each other' than with objectivism.   I know you won't understand this, but even while Christianity speaks to the real fact that people are dangerously selfish, it also speaks to the real assertion that individuals have value.

And that is the distinction here.  The worth of the individual in Christianity is not something arbitrary.  You're just telling me that nothing is more important than the individual- can you go beyond the assertion and root it in a reality of some kind?  Otherwise, why should I adopt your assertion?  The only difference between the objectivist and the communist is what they assert is the highest ideal.  If you cannot tell me why we should pick one over the other, I see no reason to consider either as being more valid than the other.  And yes, I believe that I can move beyond mere assertion in regards to Christianity's views on the individual.

BTW, your whole 'not human but just animal' stuff is eeriliy similar to language that the communists used to wipe out whole human populations.  If that's really your belief, I consider it to be one of the most dangerous beliefs I've ever heard.

"Animal in the sense of not worth wasting effort on, not in the sense of it's okay to indiscriminitely kill them."

Wow, that's a big difference.  So big, I think its better for you to think of a different word.  Animals receive all sorts of effort in various ways, both good and bad (whatever that means  )

"At the most basic level, if you don't do what is in your best interests, you die."

But you are arbitrarily associating the word 'good' with that.  Perhaps murdering 6 million Jews as in the best interests of individual Germans.  So, it was good for them to kill them.  It was in the best interest of the Jews to resist- so it was good for them to fight back.  Sounds to me like regurgitated moral relativism to me, not moral objectivism.

Let me run with your idea a little further.  See a couple of paragraphs down.

"That is not whim, it is not arbitrary, it is a fact of reality."

You misunderstand me.  I agree that in general, if you don't do what is in your best interests, you'll die.  The arbitrary part is associating that with the concept of 'good.'  I could associate anything I wanted to 'good.'  You are constructing your 'objective' morality on a subjective association.  As you said:  

"If you can not agree with these assumptions, then we really can not proceed."

Indeed.  Exactly.  I don't agree with your assumptions, so apparently this allegedly objective view is contingent on whether I agree or not, whereas something that is truly objective would be true whether I agreed or not, and you would be able to marshal 'good' reasons to force my consent.

"Christianity puts the individual at the mercy of God's whim,"

No offense, pal, but you don't know what you are talking about, and spewing propoganda ain't going to help.  Your paragraph is false on many levels, but it is not exactly relevant to this thread, which is about how atheists should live if they really believe their views, and not about Christians, which already has a thread.  I was wrong to 'bite' on your earlier reference.

Ok, now, I wanted to run with your idea of associating good things with doing what is in your best interest, or else dying.

In your concept, is it ever a morally good thing to do something that leads directly to your death?

"One case that I can think of off the top of my head - to save the life of your child. That is a biological impulse that serves to propagate the species."

But is it 'good.'  Yes or no.  It sounds like you are going to be invoking evolution as a measuring stick for determining, morally, what is 'good'?

"It's really an entirely different subject."

Ah, no it isn't.  If your objective moral standard only has a narrow range of applicability, where it can't help us see our way on larger issues, I hardly see why we should invest much time in thinking about it.

"There's nothing wrong with trying to save someone."

That's not the question.  I want to know if its 'good.'

"However, part of operating objectively is determining if you can save someone without getting yourself killed. I have given examples of this in the thread that was started on objectivism."

I believe you have.  If its alright, let's go over them now.  My question really is more direct- let's assume that you know you will be killed if you make the effort to save someone.  You know this without a doubt.  Is it 'good' or not to save that person.

A real life example that we hear about often enough is a soldier who jumps on top of a grenade to save his buddy or buddies.  He knows he's going to die.  How is this in his 'best interest' and if it is not, is it 'good' for him to do this?

"And I've already said that history has shown the results of a tyrant's actions are the destruction of both victim and perpetrator. If you really think the outcome of WWII was in the best interests of the Germans, then you are even scarier than I thought."

Don't be daft.  Look at what I said.  The OUTCOME?  Where the #$%#$% did I say anything about the 'outcome'?  You seem to be pinning the 'goodness' of the slaughter as being falsified by the fact that the Germans lost.  But the Germans very well could have won.  We could list quite a few ways in which they could have won, and if you know you're history, you know that the outcome was in doubt for quite a long time- all the while the Jews were being slaughtered.  What if they had won the war?  Would your argument no longer be valid?

"What I also find scary is that you think that whatever preserves your life is not axiomatically good."

Well, you need to put more thought into it.  There are way too many examples where 'preserving' my life might require doing things that I think we'd both violently reject as 'bad.'  We can use hypothetical examples to illustrate this, but there certainly are many real world examples as well operating on the same principles.  There is no way a 'good' person could agree that 'whatever preserves your life is axiomatically good.'

Rather than provide any hypotheticals, let me just ask:  If preserving your life requires killing someone else, does that make your act a 'good act,' axiomatically?

"So, where do we stand? I said my objective standard of good is that which contributes to one's own life. You disagreed."

Yes, you said that, but completely ignored my objection.  Your standard of good is NOT objective.  That's where we stand, and that's what we are fighting about.  The ASSOCIATION between 'good' and 'that which preserves our life' is arbitrary, not objective.  And we can think of exceptions of this 'axiom' as well, which gives us good reason to challenge it even if we dropped my charge that it is actually subjective.  

I would suggest that an objective moral code of ethics needs to be big enough to handle even the exceptions in a logically coherent and consistent way, with the smallest amount of epicycles to make it work.

Right now, I see a couple of epicycles already in your 'objective moral system.'  For example, you think its a 'different' issue about a parent dying for their child, apparently invoking some sort of biological altruism for the whole species, and looking like- I may be jumping the gun here- creating ANOTHER set of axioms that define another 'objective moral code' to define what is axiomatically 'good' for the species.

I'm quite surprised that Ragnar didn't know that Hitler could've won the war. But incase you didn't know Hitler was literally a bit wacky in the head.

"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers"

Now you've gone off the deep end. God is perceptible by all observers? If he were, what have we been arguing about for the past six months?

And I've repeatedly said that communism went wrong by elevating society above the individual. If the original literature contained this clause I would have responded immediately that this is wrong. If it used the word individual, then they did not follow their own philosophy.

If the survival of the species were at stake, then yes. But the human species is in no danger of extinction, and probably hasn't been for at least 4000 years. I believe it is longer, but that is a bare minimum.

For reality here and now (that's objective) the survival of the species is not an issue that our morals need to deal with. And no invoking scientists blowing up the planet, because that would be bad for the individual scientists as well.

So, I stand by all my prior arguments.

I already stated that a child is like an extension of your self. Protecting your child is a biological imperative that shouldn't be overcome because it is necessary. The impulse that causes you to die for your child is the same impulse that causes you to live for your child. If this impulse were removed, babies would die as soon as they were born because the parent wouldn't bother to care for them. It seems like a ridiculous idea, because it is. But that is where you end up if you follow the idea to its logical conclusion. That is why the issue of your child is the only exception.

I don't have a wife, but no, I would not give up my life to save my wife's life, and I would not expect her to give up hers for mine.

It's easy to die for someone. It is much harder to live for someone.