Thank you for responding! Although what you have responded with isn’t a ‘question’ in the normal sense of the word, but rather a huge topic that’ll be difficult to discuss in brief, I’ll give it my best shot. If I don’t cover anything specific you’d like to discuss, feel free to use my ask box :)

Firstly though, I’d like to point out that atheism doesn’t necessarily commit the proponent to materialism, nor naturalism. Despite this, the majority of atheists are indeed materialists and naturalists, me included, so your assumption is a non-problem in my case.

Atheists can have good justification for morality if either of two propositions can hold true:

1. We can have a justification for moral subjectivism or relativism
2. We can have absolute morality without appeal to a deity

There are a variety of ethical theories that have relative moralities, such as emotivism, expressivism and ethical egoism, to name just a few. There are also some moral theories that are absolute without the need for an omnipotent dictator. I, personally, believe that the second category of secular ethical theories is most correct, and I will try and argue that it is not only wrong and dogmatic, but also morally abhorrent, to claim that absolute morality exists, particularly the absolute morality of the Bible. Your ‘absolute morality’ is the morality that, judging by your Tumblr, has lead you to compare pro-choice proponents to Nazi war criminals here. A view which is not only disgustingly offensive, but absolutely incorrect - though that is another issue entirely.

Take any absolute moral claim, for example the claim that ‘a correct morality is one which gives the greatest amount of good, and the least amount of suffering’. This is a form of utilitarianism, a totally secular moral philosophy. You might want to argue against this, by saying that the only good reason to believe such a theory would be its dictation by an omnipotent force, but then such an extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary argument – one which I have never seen a convincing example of. If you can provide any logical argument as to why any valid moral theory requires your particular Christian God, be my guest.

Why, then, without absolute standards can we condemn the actions of the Nazis, a group to which you so readily compare people whose opinions differ from yours? Simple – their ethical and moral principles lead to a great amount of suffering. If you respond by saying that ‘we can’t claim that suffering is wrong without absolute standards of a creator’, you’re admitting that, without a god, you seriously wouldn’t give a fuck whether humans were happy or tortured. Are the goods you claim good because god commands them, or does god command them because they are good? To argue that, without a god, you would murder everyone you could not only makes you a cunt, it also makes you psychopathic and abhorrent human being. Of course atheists can be moral, and indeed they can be more rational in their morality than theists. This is because our morality can change over time, with the light of new evidence and new thinking. It was once thought that slaves were not true people, or that women should not teach men – both ‘moral philosophies’ which the Bible readily endorses. For you, the absolutist, these values are as relevant now as they were in 100AD. For me, my morality can learn and grow, and while I do have an absolute value, it is simply that humanity should never ever aim towards the suffering of another human being. If you want to refute this, be my guest. But be prepared for me to insult both your intellect and your moral compass.