A question for the Atheist?

Of course there are objective morals - they just don't come from your imaginary god.

All sane, healthy human beings have an innate, instinctive prohibition against harming other people who aren't threatening them. It's a product of natural selection. This characteristic allowed early humans to live together and function in groups, which provided a significant survival advantage over those who lacked that social instinct. And as we all know, the ones who survive pass on their genetic traits and the ones who don't, die. See, all very logical and rational - no need for magic beings.

If morality has to come from communion with your particular god, then how did people live according to objective morality in societies that predate your religion?

"My question is, on what grounds do you call religion bad?"

-- It's more complicated then just "religion is bad". Take the caste system in South Asia. Hinduism isn't the cause of the caste system, but the two have been so interwoven that you can't get rid of one without the other. Also, people in Nepal (where |I live) find it rather easy to see a begger child in the street and walk by. Why? Well that's just karma. These and many other things about religion are "bad".

"what is true morals for you, may not be true for another person."

-- That's true. People have always disagreed on morality and they always will, with or without religion.

"why do you call religion bad, if this is so."

-- Uh I would prefer to live in a world where didn't kill each other because we prayed to different gods? is that a good enough answer? Why does morality have to be imbued externally anyway? All cultures have a form of the 'do unto others and they would do unto you' It's hardcoded into us because our ancestors would have died if they were killing each other and stealing each other's food all the time.

It's not complicated. I don't want to live in a world where people kill each other and walk by starving orphans without caring. I just don't want to. Okay?

I deny that there are no objective morals. In fact, morality is hard-wired to some extent: even very little children show kindness and a willingness to help others.

My primary objection to religion is not about morals, although that is important enough. My primary objection is the anti-rational basis of most religions. You are expected to take on faith that which is not supported by evidence, or is even contradicted by objective evidence. So, for example, one may be called upon to say they know how the universe started -- God did it -- rather than trust the scientific method to explore the unknown. Once people are trained to accept the irrational, they can be manipulated in terrifying ways.

Religion can be bad because it deludes people's understanding of the world, retards the progress of science and provides a strong us and them mentality among those who believe differently, which often incites violence.

There are positive aspects of religion, too. It gives some people hope and can foster some positive values in people who would not otherwise possess them... I just think the negative far outweighs the positive in the grand scheme.

In terms of morality, I think the wiccans have something beautiful in their rede: "an it harm none, do as ye wilt". If we could strive to do no harm (to each other, to ourselves, to other organisms or to the environment,) then I think everything else would simply work itself out. I suppose that's much easier said than done, though.

It is this certainty that what one is taught is right really is right and is beyond question that is precisely what is bad about religion. A theist who keeps slaves or stones witches can point to biblical passages he believes are beyond rational question to justify his conduct. An atheist would at least be open to reason, being unable to point to an inerrant source that says that what he is doing is right.

This claimed monopoly on 100% moral certainty that descends from the heavens and is exempt from reason is what drives suicide bombers and is quite possibly the very worst thing about religion. Men must be made to rationally justify their actions -- religion exempts evil from this requirement.

We can't ask god what is right. He doesn't answer our questions. Following religion reduces to either doing what other people tell you to do (without them having to rationally justify what they say) or doing whatever you feel like (without you having to rationally justify it). "I hijacked that plane and flew it into a building because that's what god wanted me to do."

Your argument about objective morals contains too many confusions to sort out here. But I'll just point out the most important one -- that what is moral for me may not be moral for you does not mean that morality is not objective. It just means it's context dependent. My height is not the same as your height. But that doesn't mean that height is not objective. When you add seven to a number, what do you get? Well, it depends what number you added seven to. But to argue that you can get different results when you add seven to a number means that sums are not objective would be a serious mistake.

Objective morality? Nonsense.

On what grounds do you call religion bad? All we need to do is examine history to answer this. The crusades, nazi germany, church abuse, oppression of women, intolerance of free inquiry, the dark ages, 9/11, restriction on diet and sexual activity, the list goes on. You already knew what the answer was going to be.

There's no such thing as objective morality, thus your argument is flawed.

The fact that you think your belief is morally superior is laughable, as your particular belief system involves redemption via proxy and undermines any sound basis for personal accountability.

You are incorrect in your assertion that an atheistic world view has no objective morals.

What an atheist considers right and wrong is more or less the same thing as what a theist does, if you exclude the screwed up stuff made up by religion (such as thou shalt have no other gods than me, stone adulterers to death etc etc).

Re your statements regarding objectivity:

The problem here is you are demanding a set of black and white rules, when it is only religion that has crystallised the system of morals we have evolved to obey.

Is it wrong to kill? Yes.

Is it wrong to kill someone to save another's life (say a potential organ donor)? Yes

Is it wrong to kill someone in defence of another or one's self (ie, fighting off an attacker)? Generally no.

Is rape wrong? yes

Is stealing wrong? yes

Why do you think it is only your religion that tells you this?

Why would I, an atheist, also find them repugnant if morals were not a product of evolution?

Morality is empirical. Sam Harris shows this in his "The Moral Landscape." It is not subjective, nor is it individual or culture relative.

Religion may or may not be a problem, depending on what is believed, and especially why it is believed. This is the central problem: people believing things without any good reason. When that is fixed, humanity will progress much faster and get along much better.

Mild correction: while there is no objective basis for a morality, there is a utilitarian one (which is subjective, true). This is much the same way that there is no objective basis for the concept of government, but there is a utilitarian one (which is subjective, true). Being able to think of abstractions that have real value is just one of the perks of being human.

Morals do exist, and having established that they exist, it's possible to suggest that something is "morally incorrect." However, I disagree that religion is the cause of these problems. Religion didn't invent itself; it takes people to invent ideas and then take those ideas and turn them into action. In good contexts and with good people, religion can produce morally acceptable results. In bad contexts and with bad people, it can produce morally unacceptable results.

*edit*

I understand that it is not objectively wrong for them to do it. It is subjectively wrong based on a useful model of morality. Just like it is illegal to drive a car over 65 mph, but nobody is dumb enough to stay that driving faster is objectively wrong. Social institutions have purpose and do useful things and can be based on objective information, but their ultimate purpose is for a subjective cause like liberty, social harmony or being able to live (because objectively, nobody cares who lives and dies).

My premise is to maximize the quality of life of the most people without putting undue stress on esoteric ideas of individual liberty. The system is not objective. It's not even perfect. But if you have a better model that does what I want it do, then let me know and I'll adopt it.

Atheism means I don't believe in gods. That's it. No more, no less. All you can say about atheists is that. Some atheists say religion is bad, lots of religious people say other religions are bad. Many atheists and religious people make no comment about other religions.

Morals are not the property of religion and have nothing to do with it. They are the rules for a society. Every society has them whether they believe in gods or not or whether there is a religion or not.