Where do atheists get their morality from?

[DeistPaladin]

Good discussion so far. To save space, I like to quote just the portion of the post I'm responding to. Quoting an entire post, especially one as lengthy as ours in this discussion, seems cumbersome especially since everyone can read it for themselves just a few posts back.

Just a suggestion.

Objective morality would mean right or wrong independent of whether anyone thinks so or not. I don't see how measurement applies here: this discussion is about moral ontology, that is the basis of our moral values, not applied ethics.

I suppose my background as a businessman is influencing my discussion of morality. I typically think of "objective" as measurable. "Sales were $XYZ last month" is an objective statement. "Our salesperson is doing a good job" is a subjective evaluation, one hopefully backed up by objective or empirical evidence.

I tend to see any evaluation of anything as "good" or "bad" as being subjective in nature. This doesn't mean it's whatever anyone says it is. You can make a subjective evaluation and have objective or statistical evidence to back up your claim so that you can make your case that your subjective judgment is rational. For example, if I make the statement, "we have a good salesperson working for us" and the objective data shows sales are down, I have a harder time making a rational case for my subjective evaluation. If, however, the data shows that sales are up, the evaluation is easier to defend.

Wouldn't you agree, if God exists, that by definition he would be an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal being?

As a deist myself, I would say "no", "no", "no", "no" and "not necessarily" respectively. That may be hard for you to understand but I can explain.

The term "God" only means "First Cause" or the mysterious mind behind the Big Bang, one that may have tweaked our evolution so that we would form these advanced brains, opposible thumbs and our sense of community and fair play, the combination of which have enabled us to create this civilization which we now enjoy. As impressive as the universe is to me, the only qualities one must attribute to "God" are "conscious" and "powerful enough to get the ball rolling".

Further, I might add that the "omni" words are prone to paradox. I'm sure you've heard the "God and the rock" problem.

Finally, the god you describe clearly does not exist. If God is omnipotent, why evolution? God could have simply poofed us into existence in our current form. If God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omni-benevolent, whence commeth evil?

There are, of course, different theoddicies you can invoke to answer this question but the simpler explanation is that clearly God is not perfect. That's fine with me but you may feel differently.

In examining those attributes then, wouldn't it be altogether rational to deem such an independent being as a viable authority in our lives?

I'm not sure I follow your argument. It might help me if you would clarify which of the three scenarios you believe:

1. God decides what is moral and sets the rules for what is good.
   
2. God evaluates what is moral and wills things because they are good
   
3. God's will is how we define what is good and so God is good because God wills what God wills
   

Pick one and we'll discuss further. If you wish to save time, none of these answers will put theistic morality on a more solid footing than secular morality.

What basis do you have to trust your empathy, or is it just arbitrary (see above definition)? If it's arbitrary, why 'should' everyone else adhere to your views on how to be moral?

As with my discussion above on the "good salesperson", I'd be open to any rational discussion on any topic. My moral judgment may be wrong and, if it is, we can exchange reasons why.

To use your pedophile priests example, I'm quite outspoken about how wrong that is. To justify my evaluation, I would point out how it victimizes a child and how it harms them both in the short term and long term. The "social contract" is a useful tool in discussing issues like these.

Your utilitarianism/ Sarah Connor analogy concern in a way relates to your point about the admonishments of those so called "victimless" crimes- how could anyone possibly know how any of those things will affect someone else? Think chaos theory/butterfly effect (and your analogy for that matter). Just because you do not see the immediate effects of an action, doesn't mean there aren't any. And unless one can travel to the future (one would have to at every point in the future), we have no way of knowing how what we do now will affect everyone else, thus no rational way to determine with absolution, how to reduce pain & suffering.

Your use of the unforeseen future to justify religions obsession with victimless crimes seems to smack of an argument from ignorance (also known as "The Lord works in mysterious ways" argument). If we were to debate the reasons why blasphemy is morally wrong, the burden of proof would be on you to show reasons to think so.

If morality is in fact subjective in this socio-relational sense (like you, I am open to arguments on this point [though what I've heard seems grim]), then it would follow that no one has any basis to condemn or criticize another person for their actions. They would merely be "different from what you would do." Thus, on this view, Catholic priests molesting those boys were not objectively wrong per se, just acting different to how you would conduct yourself. Is this what you're willing to subscribe to?

Absolutely not, and this was my point in saying "subjective =/= anything goes".

This issue comes up when atheists condemn certain cruel religious practices, such as "honor killings" as practiced in certain Islamic countries. Such practices are considered "normal" in their culture but I have no problem saying they are morally wrong. To justify that evaluation, I can point to the cruelty of the practice, how it violates the rights of the woman, how it destroys a life and what that life might have brought, how it sows fear into society.