Subjective Morals and Societal Whims

[Whateverist]

I've been watching lots of YouTube videos on atheism. The argument I like lately why I disagree with Atheism has to do with morality. In naturalism, or a natural only world, everything that happens no matter how good or bad is simply a product of nature so it cannot be said to be moral or immoral. It is amoral. But we human beings consider morality vital to our being. So that seems to be a problem. Not sure you claim there is free will in that case but that is a side point.

So if in nature all the bad stuff that happens is just a product of nature, including bad religion and bad faiths, then can any of it really be considered wrong even if it is contradictory with other world-views, religions or faiths since it is all naturally induced? That would be my question. When someone is a contradiction I have to reject that world-view.

For example, a societal whim in some cultures considers pedophilia acceptable even necessary to preserve the population. Who is to say even though an atheist may claim he rejects pedophilia now would not be justified in his mind to condone it after a significant time has passed even though he may not commit it? Whereas a non-subjective objective law transcends and would never allow pedophilia under any circumstances.

This is why I believe in objective morals and not subjective relativism based on societal whims. Where then can we find objective morals since atheism doesn't provide it for us?

Curious what you think?

More than happy to tell you what I think about this just as soon as you respond to some of those who've already done so. We get a lot of one-post wonders who copy pasta shit without putting any of their own thought into it. No point if that is what you're doing.