Where do atheists get their morality from?

[DeistPaladin]

This proposal that through our evolution we can now better evaluate moral issues is highly dubious. The fact is there is no metric in existence that can tell us if we're doing a 'better' job or not, objectively.

I think the case couldn't be more clear. Prior to the 20th century, what we now call "wars of aggression" was a normal part of political life. Today, it is recognized as and prosecuted as a "war crime". Progress.

Two hundred years ago, slavery was an accepted institution in many parts of America and defended (often times using the Bible, btw). Today, it is recognized as an abhorrent practice. Progress.

So when I say we are evolving morally, it is in recognizing how certain actions create pain and violate the rights of others

I'm afraid this does lend itself to an "anything goes" system. There has been nothing presented to objectively justify otherwise, only reasons found arbitrary. The "Social Contract" is not necessarily obligating- there's nothing to say people cannot go off on their own and begin their own society with a different set of values- who then are you to say they are "wrong?" What if precisely half the world felt rape and slavery is ok? Who is right?

I'm having a little trouble here getting across my carefully articulated point that not all subjective opinions are equal. I can try repeating that some subjective opinions can be supported by objective data and logical argument while others can't but would there be any point? I'm not sure why you're not understanding what I'm telling you.

Your assertions concerning the origin of "Do unto others..." and how Muslims may 'feel' about their law does nothing to undermine the truth of the law, or one's obligation to it. That would commit the genetic fallacy.

How?

Ultimately, this view places a great deal of faith on mankind to "do the right thing." Incidentally, I have faith we will, for I believe God has written the moral code on all our hearts (Romans 2:14-15), but what assurance does the non-believer have?

You can believe that our conscience is a divine imprint or telepathic message from our Creator if you wish but I don't see how that strengthens your case. If we as humans are programmed with a conscience, what need have we of religion?

You say you believe morals are personally-relative, but honestly I think your backpedalling and appeals to authorities of statistics and/or social contracts betrays this feeling, and that you really feel objective moral values do exist!

And again, I'm having to repeat myself here. I've said over and over that yes, morality is subjective and, no, that doesn't mean "anything goes". Not all subjective evaluations are equal and that which is an evaluation can be supported or derailed by logical argument and objective data.

Also, to date, I have never received a satisfactory explanation of what "objective morals" would even be, as the very phrase seems an oxymoron.