Logical Outworking of Morals

[SaintConfused]

Cross.eyed,

It makes sense that God would 'implant' a moral code into everyone.

God purposefully implanted these 'moral codes' to conflict against each other constantly? It's 'logical', yet it still makes little too no sense. Wonderful.
I actually think, in the absence of this 'moral code' given to 'everyone', it developed because organization was necessary for early farming and hunting methods. After a while, as villages and other settlements grew with individual occupations the 'moral code' was based around not 'right or 'wrong', but who was most successful with certain achievements. This is Earth, competition wouldn't be less common at all no matter how far we return to a future date even here at the 21st Century AD. The 'moral code' would expand and grow as humans have, and there is nothing illogical about that even though
we haven't gathered specific data concerning this sort of thing (such as when exactly, who, what happened, how close or far is this from another historically important standpoint such as the separation of tectonic plates on Pangaea, melting of the Bering Straight, and other events).

What is not logical is that an atheistic worldview doesn't include God
and so believe we come by personal morality from impersonal events.

I don't understand what you mean by saying 'impersonal events', 'personal morality' is as simple as thinking for yourself what is and isn't 'moral'. For example, a child gains 'personal morality' when it sees another being spanked or punished for some 'wrong' action. The child can decide with 'personal morality' how that event happened by doing something 'wrong' and experiencing the same thing or he can avoid that and the punishment altogether with a 'good' conscious. The event observed wasn't 'impersonal', because the child could react in a variety of ways and someone would have to explain the situation of why the other hand been spanked. What was 'wrong', what made it 'wrong', how do we reassure ourselves it was 'wrong', and what can we do to make it 'right'. All those aren't difficult to answer, however the answers themselves would expectantly not hold favor in a place that is well developed in making 'personal morality' a shared tradition amongst a growing populace of believers. The worldview of Atheism excludes any God as an 'answer', not just that of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

They are not preaching what they really do believe.

Atheism is the absence of belief, and preaching isn't done by Atheists in the same way that of Creationists or Televangelists.
It is a study and acceptance of honest opinions in the absence of theistic thoughts. It's not a choir or payment too any deities.

That is hypocrisy.

No, it's not. What an Atheist 'believes' in the absence of theism doesn't require preaching or sermonizing of any kind.~SC

[SaintConfused]

B.W.,

Everyone can agree that murder — premeditated murder - is a moral wrong but however it becomes justified as a noble right when
it comes to the matter of abortion.

I find nothing nobly 'right' about abortion. In fact, I'd have to say it happens mostly due to
a lack of responsibility and commitment between mates. Then there's the other factors.

Without God, there is no moral cement in which to base morality on.

Then we have the trouble of providing reasoning for what keeps the cement morality solid.
'God will do!' isn't going to convince or hold interest with certain people.
What about God makes the morals solid in his presence? His love? His will? His justice?
His authority? After we decide that, we must arrive at an agreement with the answer or continue searching.
When I read the above it's like you're telling us: 'we must wait for the boss, he will arrange this mess.'
It isn't the same as: 'the boss has brought us this (_name something to solidify
human morals_) so that we may help each other keep this solid order.'

It shifts and changes as it manipulates the concept of love and grace to suit personal selfish whims.

'Selfish' isn't all that bad, it's just how it is applied that can be a moral threat.
I want nothing more than to be successful in life, does this mean I'm breaking the cement? NO.
I want it to be flexible, I want it to change, does this mean I'm threatening God? NO.
When you're part of the moral foundation, just under it to be more precise, the 'personal
selfish whim' isn't going to harm anything or anyone although it will be a temporary annoyance.
The conceptual manipulation alone is more vital than some random individual's will.
Changing the definitions of 'love' and 'grace' can damage several generations across many centuries, whereas
leaving it alone by what everyone honestly doesn't mind keeping as an absolute definition can be an impressive benefit for us.
When a certain change is acquired and kept, we are no longer exposed too a lot of change.
The 'selfish whim' is nothing compared to an instantaneous, unexpected, violent activity coming from God's whim.
Such as smoothing out the moral foundation and every erect statute of collective unity will be destroyed for not pointing in the direction(s)
of God's whim properly. It makes 'God playing dice' turn into 'God playing marbles' (to hit the collective statutes trying to reach
out too His will instead of sinking in on themselves).

raised from the dead so we can receive full forgiveness for messing with the Holy standards of God.

Wouldn't forgiveness just postpone the inevitable actual result for being disobedient to God's Holy standards? According to John 3:16,
for believing in Jesus we get everlasting life (doesn't say reward or punishment) nothing of forgiveness. A few verses later (3:18),
I'm condemned already for not believing in Jesus. Of course, when it is someone else's will. I get no choice in the matter.