Where do atheists get their morality from?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

By absence of any replies to my posts, I'd assume that you are once again practicing the art of sticking your head in the sand.

But having some external, objective source of morality, and having it being all-good gives one a transcendent source for morality. Now granted, the existence of such a being is questionable, and your objection per the euthyphro dilemma is a relevant one.

Except, it doesn't become objective simply by being external to you and it doesn't become transcendent by being all-good. For example, I'm external to you, therefore, my moral code is objective. Also, since I get to define it, I can define it so that by that moral code, I'm also all-good. So, I'm giving you an external, "objective" source of morality that is all-good and thus transcendent. Call me when you're reasy to worship me.

But hypothetically, all other things being equal, if the only difference was that the morality was dependent on an all-good God rather than human culture, it seems the theists are better off.

Except, whether or not that god is "all-good" is determined by the vey moral code that he specifies. That's circular reasoning.

I say this in light of Aushcwitz, Rwanda, Dachau, Nanking, Khmer Rouge. As wonderful as it would be to deny that humanity is eminently capable of horrors given subjectivist views of the world, we can't deny this.

Interesting how all the examples you picked were committed by people not believing in subjectivist views, but those believing that they'd discovered the objective, transcendental truth.

Looking at the local news near my own home town enough to remind us that moral subjectivism/relativism based on how we construct our own experience of reality is not as universally beneficial as we deem it to be.

I wish I could just go into his brain and find out how exactly he constructed his moral worldview.

Really? Because it doesn't seem like it was his moral worldview that was a problem at all. In fact, his statement upon arrest seems to suggest that his moral worldview was fine, it was his application of it that was screwed up on account of him being high.

Please do some more reading. You don't appear to understand what and how "objective" is defined, when theists use it in context of objective moral values. You don't show any knowledge of responses and objections to the Euthyphro dilemma either.

Looking at the somewhat personal, vindictive attitude you are showing towards me, I'd suggest you combine it with a good knowledge of the topic of discussion in order to maximize the force of your arguments.

Thank you for participating though.