Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[RoadRunner79]

You are just pushing the issue back to causing harm, and saying causing harm is wrong.   The question is if it is really wrong, or just a matter of individual opinion or social convention.  This doesn't get you out of the problem of objective morality.   And if you say that it is subjective, then you can't really criticize others for being immoral, other than just expressing your feelings (or whatever).

Great, so answer my questions at the end of the quote (that you conveniently skipped)? Because let's not pretend theism is clear answer. Convince me that God is the best explanation of why beating your wife is really wrong. Or provide some other good reason yourself.

Sorry, I must have missed the question mark.

Physical laws can't give you an ought.   They are what they are.   You combine X and Y and get Z.   They cannot tell you, that it ought to give you "A".    For this you would need a personal transcendent authority which can say that it ought to be A, even though it is Z.  In addition, with God as the moral authority, it is not arbitrary, as morality is based on God's nature, which is unchanging and maximally great. 

Their is some debate on if morality is objective.   We can't look into a microscope and find morality.   However I would argue, that almost no one behaves as if morality is subjective. That we have an innate sense of right and wrong (or good and evil if you will).  This is true of the believer and the unbeliever.

And if you are believing that morality is subjective, then you have to deal with the consequences of that view.
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo1/koukl.php

---

1.)   How you came to the conclusion that morals are the result of evolution?
2.)   Do you think that there is really something wrong with a man beating his wife, or is it just a social convention, that could have evolved otherwise? 

And I'll  some more (related)
3.)    Can something be morally wrong, in spite of social convention or popular endorsement?   Can one society or individual be judged as being more moral than another?

1. Because other animals have the basics of a feeling of fairness and of compassion. They also tend to be social species. And, the basics of sociality require the types of rules that *are* morality.

2. It could have evolved otherwise, but then we would be a very different species. To be *human*, with our social sensibilities and our evolutionary history, implies we respond negatively to this type of behavior.

3. Yes, one society can be regarded as being less moral than another. it all depends on what encourages human happiness and well-being. Same for individuals.

---

You are just pushing the issue back to causing harm, and saying causing harm is wrong.   The question is if it is really wrong, or just a matter of individual opinion or social convention.  This doesn't get you out of the problem of objective morality.   And if you say that it is subjective, then you can't really criticize others for being immoral, other than just expressing your feelings (or whatever).

Think of it as a matter of *species* convention. Morality isn't objective in the sense that it is determined by something outside of humans. But it is also something that is part of being human.

1.)   It doesn't follow that "it evolved" from this.
2.)   Ok, so from this there is no morality, it's just if it pisses others off enough to a point of preventing you from reproducing.  Nothing is really right or wrong.
3.)  How do you make that comparison if it's based on the social group?   If it's just how they happened to evolve with no telology or purpose; then you can't really make this comparison.   You are assuming an objective morality (happyness and well-being) in this argument.   What is your basis for this?  I don't think that what makes the most people happy is a good way to base mortality.