Atheism is not a religion or belief system

ATHEISM exists without a value system at least as I view it. Personally to be an atheist is to NOT be superstitious. That's NOT what I believe, it's what I don't believe based on my system of moral and intellectual virtues.
My personal Code of Behavior is much influenced by Aristotle, early atheist philosopher, he didn't believe in the gods and superstitions of his day and culture either.

Aristotle believed that everything has a purpose, a greater Good. He said "Eudaimonia" is the good for a person. Eudaimonia, which he defined as pleasure or happiness, is the supreme goal of human life, Eudaimonia' is the end goal or purpose behind everything we do as people, and is desired for its own sake. Each one of us defines his own personal Eudaimonia. It is a state attained in a human lifetime. Your rewards are Here and Now! No after life, no sky ghost value systems and rules.

Within that context Aristotle developed a code of moral virtues that are cultivated through habit or practice and intellectual virtues, the qualities of the developed mind, the infinite potential of Man. Each one of us balances and weighs these two sets of virtues. This allows us each to make our own choice of the responses to the situations life throws at us but it doesn't require everyone to do the same thing.

Each Man defines his Nirvana and attains it via a path that each Man defines. You will find there is literally no thing I am absolutely against. I'm a Situational Ethicist, for me there can be no absolute good or evil. As a rationalist I can provide a justification for any behavior in some possible situation.  No action exists without relation to other things.I don't accept morals as values that are universally valid, and thus there can be no such thing as SIN.

That's a belief system, that I am an atheist and godless are a sub-components of that. My values come from me - not myths and superstitions.

Eudaimonia

My personal Code of Behavior is much influenced by Aristotle [Greek, 4th Century BC] early humanist & atheist philosopher, scientist,scholar. [he didn't believe in the gods and superstitions of his day & culture either].

Aristotle believed that everything has a purpose, a greater Good. He said "Eudaimonia" is the good for a person. Eudaimonia, which he defined as pleasure or happiness, is the supreme goal of human life, Eudaimonia' is the end goal or purpose behind everything we do as people, and is desired for its own sake. Each one of us defines his own personal Eudaimonia.

Within that context Aristotle developed a code of moral virtues that are cultivated through habit or practice and intellectual virtues, the qualities of the developed mind, the infinite potential of Man. Each one of us balances and weighs these two sets of virtues. This allows us each to make our own responses to situations life throws at us but it doesn't require everyone to do the same thing.

Each Man defines his Nirvana and attains it via a path Man defines.

Morals & Sin

You will find there is literally no thing I am absolutely against. I'm a Situational Ethicist, for me there can be no absolute good or evil. As a sociopath I don't understand Fletcher's only absolute - LOVE. As a rationalist I can provide a justification for any behavior in some possible situation. I don't accept morals as values that are universally valid, therefore there can be no SIN. No action exists without relation to other things.

More on Sharing the road with bicycles

This is a response to the earlier posts

It is quite simple. It is only fair to ALL ROAD USERS for bicycles and their operators to have to achieve minimum standards too.

There is a legal manner in which to penalize the speeding woman who is failing to maintain proper control and as of recent for cell phone use too. These penalties and consequences are linked to having a state sanctioned operator's permit allowing it's holders use of public road ways. A road user can be declared by the state to be an illegitimate user of the public roads by removing that privilege, by removing the DRIVER'S LICENSE. No such sanction exists for the bicycle rider and should be available to society to curb unsafe behaviors. Can you imagine the chaos on the roads if there were no way to take away the driving privileges of motorized scofflaws? Though admittedly bicycle operator permits won't stop every single red light running peddle-head, there is no reason why not to start trying to control them.

We expect other road users to be at least vaguely familiar with the road user's code of conduct as we go out and share the roads. And I expect that other operators have a minimum proficiency in vehicle operation skills. The DRIVER'S LICENSE says that you have archived that. I want bicycle riders to have to demonstrate the same proficiency for access. It is my expectation for public safety that the state vet the skills of other road users. All other road users.

We determine and track the proper and correct vehicles for use on public road ways by the state-issued ID for vehicles, the license plate. I can't ride my YZ450 Yamaha motorcycle to work because the state won't give me a plate for it. It's an off-road vehicle without lights, signals, ect. There is no manner in which to determine if your bicycle is proper for public street use, has a minimum of equipment and even if it is your bike without state vehicle ID.

All road users need to be financially responsible through liability insurance for damages, insurance will require driver's licenses and vehicle ID plates.

I continue to maintain that bicycles are a legitimate component of the 21st century urban transportation mix. For the safety and respect of all road users, the non-motorized public road user should be required to archive a minimum standard of skills and adhere to certain behaviors to continue the privilege of public road use. As a society of road users we should have a method to restrict that privilege and provide proof of skills and authorization. The Bicycle Riders Permit is needed for that reason. The vehicle also needs to be equipped properly to be a road vehicle and a license plate and vehicle standards is that way to achieve that.

And finally, it is a matter of perception. As the situation exists now many motorized vehicle operators do not view the bicycle as a legitimate fully-fledged road user. When the bicycle rider can say he has a driver's license, a license plate and is insured just like a car driver is, then and only then can he/she claim true legitimate road user status.

Why Bicycles need License Plates.

The reason that motorized vehicle users OBEY traffic laws is because if they don't the State takes away operator permits, license plates and violators have insurance rate increases and higher fees attached to renewals. If the bicycle is to be a legitimate component of the modern urban transportation mix, and it should be, then they need meet requirements to become a legitimate public road users. The only way that will occur is to put license plates on bikes, require operator permits and make them get a form of liability and personal injury insurance.

Right now there is no consequence to improper bicycle operation similar to losing your driver's license. There needs to be that threat to keep bike riders in line. That will go a long way to stopping the lawlessness that is so pervasive among the peddle craft commuters. Bicycles need to be traceable through a visible identification numbers [license plate] and they need to be responsible for the potential damage to vehicles and property that might occur while using the public roads. EVERY other public road user must meet these requirements, why not bicycles? Why are bicycles above the law?