Where do atheists get their morality from?

[DeistPaladin]

I have trouble even writing this first question in a coherent way because the term "better" calls for a subjective judgement, but here it is. If morality is subjective how can one person's view or one group's views be better than another?

I really think part of the problem here is how the Christian worldview seems so fixed on dichotomies that it imposes them even when the topic doesn't call for it (see the logical fallacy "false dichotomy"). I've noticed it in a lot of Christian writings.

The Christian worldview is indeed filled with dichotomies.

• Jesus and Satan
  
• Heaven and Hell
  
• Saved and Lost
  

The pitfall here, and so many Christians seem to fall into it, is thinking that the dichotomy is "objective morality vs. anything goes". I've already explained how "objective morality" is a contradiction in terms (morality is based on values, objectivity is independent of values). To you, "subjective morality" is a similar contradiction, since to you it means "anything goes" which is not a code of morality at all.

When I say morality is subjective (or at least I see no other conclusion that I can draw), it is to say that anytime we make value judgments ("good" or "bad") we are invoking a subjective view. However, when we declare something to be "good" or "bad" we can back up that opinion with arguments based on objective facts.

If I say to you my business does "good quality work", this is a subjective evaluation. If I were to say it's of "better quality" than my competitors, that too is a subjective evaluation. But what if I back up this argument with objective facts. Say I start citing calculated statistics like "average seat time", "remake percentages" and "returns for credit" and show that my numbers are better than my competitor? I have a stronger argument then.

So to declare a matter subjective is not to say "anything goes". We can still provide logical arguments and objective data to back up our subjective evaluations to indicate they are correct assessments.

If our morality is in a large part defined by evolution, how can we trust ourselves to make a subjective moral judgement. Isn't moral judgement then just the reflexive neural response of an electromechanical ape-like meat machine?

Again, I think you've fallen into another either/or pitfall of the Christian worldview. In this case, it's "either God created us or we have no soul". This is a side note to our main discussion but there are many other possibilities. For example, we evolved and God exists (perhaps God set the universe in motion and tweaked our evolution at points). God may exist and we have no soul (this was the view of the authors of some of the OT books). God does not exist and we still have souls (this is the view apparently of some Buddhists who believe in reincarnation, for what can reincarnate if there is no soul?). Or God and souls do not exist and we still are conscious beings, more than the sum of our parts.

How can anyone claim the right to pass judgement on anyone else, since all morality would seem to have an equal footing?

As I've said before, I don't agree that they are on an equal footing. Subjective views can still be backed with objective data and logical arguments.

For example, compare a secular society with an Islamic society that practices forms of Sharia law that calls for the brutal treatment of women. I would make the argument about how honor killings terrify a society and violate the rights of the women killed. We can invoke the social contract that the men wouldn't want to be treated that way, and so are hypocrites for subjecting women to that treatment. We can also cite statistics that reflect quality of life and life expectancy.

Subjectivity is admitting there are shades of gray, but some shades are brighter or darker than others.

---

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.

The problem is that even if God existed and was a personal, loving god, this brings us no closer to an objective standard of morality no matter how you try to slice it.

If God decides on a set of rules, this is just as arbitrary as if any human ruler were to do it.
If God determines what is right based on evaluations, this code of morality exists outside of God and does not require God's existence.
If Goodness is defined as what God wills, this is both arbitrary (a contrived definition) and also based on God's subjective will.

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

But God would have a "mind" and therefore any system of morality invented by God would not be objective. Objective must be external to any mind, even God's.