Where do atheists get their morality from?

[Atom]

I didn't have anything specific in mind for the meanings of these words, but here is something to work with:
absolute = the same for all people all the time.
external = originating from outside the person.

I think you're trying to re-work the definition of "objective" in order to rig the discussion.

Because I am a Christian I assume you know I believe in an external source for objective morality. I believe that an objective standard exists, is based on love and truth and follows from God's intrinsic nature. That isn't what I was interested in discussing, and trying to foist this idea on the people who frequent this forum would probably just get people mad.

I suspect you also know that apologists often use an argument for Christianity based on the existence of objective moral standards, but the prevailing opinion here is that no such objective moral values exist, so that argument wouldn't be the least bit convincing.

I just looked up the word "objective" and the word "external standard" isn't part of the definition. There are references of "external to the mind" (or of a beings opinions) but not "external standard".

I'm perfectly happy with that definition. External to the mind works fine.

...
But you want to sneak in "external standard" to the definition so you can say "God is external, ergo any rules he makes up are objective rules for us".

You are correct in saying that this is what I believe, but it wouldn't be constructive for me to argue my POV in this discussion.

Sorry, but that's not what we're discussing. "Objective morals" need to be independent of ANY being's feelings, thoughts, opinions, values, etc. That's one reason why theistic morality fails to gain any advantage over secular morality.

I agree, that isn't what we're discussing. I disagree with the conclusion that objective moral values cannot come from God, but that is because your conclusion comes from your deist worldview vs. my Christian worldview. Discussing this difference would be an interesting topic, but is rather out of scope for my OP.

And I maintain that "objective morals" is an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp", "unnecessary essentials" or "honest politician". Morals are based on values. Values are, by definition, subjective. So "objective morals" translates to "values not based on values".

I understand what you are saying, and think you are wrong. If it is ok with you perhaps we could discuss this some other time. I'm interested, just not right now.

---

(* Yes, I know that the 'catgut violin strings' thing is an urban myth. I just didn't want to pedant a pithy phrase to death.)

It's a good metaphor, and I liked it.

Most of your post seemed well reasoned, I don't disagree with most of what you said. I do have a problem with evolutionary explanations for morality, in part because they are ad hoc, but also because watching the complete indifference of animals to pain and suffering in each other seems to contradict the idea that humans being social animals, explains why humans value caring for each other. A lot of social animals get along fine with very little indications of benevolence toward each other so why should we think such benevolence is evolved in humans?

---

I didn't have anything specific in mind for the meanings of these words, but here is something to work with:
absolute = the same for all people all the time.
external = originating from outside the person.

I'm curious. Is there a single human activity which you assert meets those criteria?

Oxygen, food, and water, the genetic information that makes us human. I'm not sure I'd call morality a human activity, but I'm not sure this is what you're saying either.