In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[zebo-the-fat]

Fewer than 25% believe religion is a force for good. Over 50% believe atheism a force for good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFvon0Fr1L4

How do atheists define morality?

Morality is mainly treating others as you would like to be treated in their position, try to be kind to people, no gods required for that

[The Grand Nudger]

The vast majority of our moral calculations are so blisteringly obvious they hardly seem to be the things you'd need to run by god, first, even if there were a god.  

"Hey god, this is steve...what's your opinion on being a complete asshole to this person who just cut me off in traffic?"

-Steve, don't bother me with this penny ante shit, I'm trying to deal with a genocide in progress half a world away.

[Mister Agenda]

Not getting our morals from someone who claims to be a moral authority. But asking this about atheists is a category error, as they same question would be if asked of theists (you'll get different answers depending on what god they believe in). On this forum, most of the atheists are humanists, who use their brains to figure out what is most moral based on what has the best outcome for human thriving.

*emphasis mine*
Really?

on this forum:

Some atheists were defending a gay man buggering an under age boy.

Another atheist has stated there 5 people she'd like to kill if she knew she could get away with it.

Another atheist claimed if he lived back in the day, he'd happily participate in chattel slavery.

(I assume you disagree with the above?)

Clearly examples of why an individual's brain isn't capable of deciding what's moral.

So again, what is an atheists moral authority?

I assumed you understood what 'most' means. I should have known better. And given my assessment of your authenticity and genuineness, it seems likely that some or all of your examples are misrepresentations.

[Aegon]

Such a bizarre idea, that without God we're lost. Ooooo I don't know right from wrong. Is killing bad? Idk, I don't have a book to tell me! Ahh!!

If a Christian thinks they'll suddenly become an evil asshole if they lost their beliefs they need to consult with a psychiatrist because they may be sociopaths

I believe I share a fundamental connection with the universe, and that includes other people. Obviously I know what hurts or helps others, and do as much as I can to maximize the latter

[Fireball]

...
on this forum:

Some atheists were defending a gay man buggering an under age boy.

Another atheist has stated there 5 people she'd like to kill if she knew she could get away with it.

...

Please provide complete links to the above so that we won't suffer any of your stellar contextomy.

[Angrboda]

Not getting our morals from someone who claims to be a moral authority. But asking this about atheists is a category error, as they same question would be if asked of theists (you'll get different answers depending on what god they believe in). On this forum, most of the atheists are humanists, who use their brains to figure out what is most moral based on what has the best outcome for human thriving.

*emphasis mine*
Really?

on this forum:

Some atheists were defending a gay man buggering an under age boy.

Another atheist has stated there 5 people she'd like to kill if she knew she could get away with it.

Another atheist claimed if he lived back in the day, he'd happily participate in chattel slavery.

(I assume you disagree with the above?)

Clearly examples of why an individual's brain isn't capable of deciding what's moral.

So again, what is an atheists moral authority?

Theists will argue, in defense of changing mores with regard to, say, slavery, that there being a source of moral values doesn't necessarily imply that we will have an unfailing ability to determine what those values are. The former is a question of moral ontology rather than moral epistemology. That there are varying opinions about what is moral does not imply that there is no such thing as a moral truth. Both theists and atheists make this point, so your questions are unenlightening. Moreover, if morality is relative rather than objective, morals may change over time or among different contexts. That doesn't mean that there isn't a source of morality underlying their determinations. Perhaps what you mean to say is that atheist morals are arbitrary. That may be the case, but even if so, they are no less arbitrary than the morals of a theist whose God pulled his or her specific moral rules out of their ass.

[Rayaan]

The polls are rigged. SAD!

[Simon Moon]

Not getting our morals from someone who claims to be a moral authority. But asking this about atheists is a category error, as they same question would be if asked of theists (you'll get different answers depending on what god they believe in). On this forum, most of the atheists are humanists, who use their brains to figure out what is most moral based on what has the best outcome for human thriving.

*emphasis mine*
Really?

on this forum:

Some atheists were defending a gay man buggering an under age boy.

And that would be immoral, no matter how many people defended it.

Wasn't Mary 14 when she married Joseph? Yes she was. It was common practice in the 1st century for young girls to be married to older men.

Was it moral back then for older men to marry 14 year olds?

Another atheist has stated there 5 people she'd like to kill if she knew she could get away with it.

Immoral if she actually went through with it. But thankfully, thought crimes are not immoral.

Your moral authority punishes people, FOR ETERNITY, for thought crimes. Talk about immoral...

Another atheist claimed if he lived back in the day, he'd happily participate in chattel slavery.

And that would have been immoral.

Your god condones it, so you got that going for your moral authority.

As for me, I believe there was never a time when slavery could be justified as moral. Christians have to perform some pretty impressive mental gymnastics in order to justify slavery in the Bible.

(I assume you disagree with the above?)

Clearly examples of why an individual's brain isn't capable of deciding what's moral.

So again, what is an atheists moral authority?

I already explained where I get mine.

Yeah.

The thing is, if you look at all the countries in the world with: the lowest crime rates, best health care, lowest infant mortality, lowest poverty rates, highest percentage of upward mobility, highest education rates, most freedoms, etc, they almost all correlate to the countries with the highest percentage of atheist populations.

Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and to a slightly lesser extent, Japan, France all have majority atheist populations.

*emphasis mine*
Not true

Also I take it you agree with colonialism?

No, I do not agree with colonialism.

What's your point?

[robvalue]

The goal of my morality is to try and make sure people and animals are as happy and healthy as possible. If someone else has different goals, then I'm happy to have a conversation about why that is, and to see if either of us might change our minds. Until at least some overlap in goals has been agreed, there's no point discussing morality any further.

If however someone does agree with me about the goal, there's little point them telling me that they have some sort of superior motive for achieving it.

[Huggy Bear]

*emphasis mine*
Really?

on this forum:

Some atheists were defending a gay man buggering an under age boy.

Another atheist has stated there 5 people she'd like to kill if she knew she could get away with it.

Another atheist claimed if he lived back in the day, he'd happily participate in chattel slavery.

(I assume you disagree with the above?)

Clearly examples of why an individual's brain isn't capable of deciding what's moral.

I also say you would happily participate in chattel slavery back in the day.

An individuals brain is pretty much incapable of not deciding what's moral at least to some degree.  

Children have been fucked, people killed and slaves taken in the name of god too, people deciding what's moral with god added doesn't necessarily equal progression with moral attitudes.

Like I said, hit dogs, holler...

If I was in a situation where I was part of a huge rich family who made money from having slaves who were black I doubt I'd give up my vast fortune, large house, secure family and farm and whatever else just because I feel sorry for a few black people, and I am a person with a lot of empathy in comparison with people I know, but I imagine in a world full of unfairness, poverty and death a few slaves wouldn't weigh heavy on my guilt, since round the time of slaves there were child chimney sweeps and mill workers, people dying of all sorts, and it was a harsh dog eat dog world.

Seeing how I'm a descendant of slaves it's hardly likely that I'd own slaves, not to mention there was this whole abolitionist movement, so not everyone was as morally bankrupt as you're implying.

---

I assumed you understood what 'most' means. I should have known better. And given my assessment of your authenticity and genuineness, it seems likely that some or all of your examples are misrepresentations.

When I don't supply quotes you guys think i'm misrepresenting, when I do supply quotes, I'm quote mining.

You kudosed the above post, as he himself claimed, he considers himself full of empathy, as most likely you yourself do.

Why should I take your claims seriously?