First let me again stress this fact: Atheism itself has nothing to do with ethics. Are we clear on that? Atheis does not logically entail any theory of ethics. Atheism is just about not believing in a god or gods. But, as an atheist, I can always rely on various secular theories of ethics like Secular Humanism for example.

Since we are clear with that, let us proceed:
Ok…so what is the foundation of morality in atheism? Before we answer this…as always, I rely to definitions (Sorry @ Isang Kaibigan, that's my style).

morality (m-rl'-t, m-) n. pl. moralities1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

So there must be a standard, right? What standard are we going to use then? Does religion synonymous with virtue? Do the belief in God synonymous to a better ethical standard? Again, we are just running in more questions huh?

Then can there be "good" atheists or "bad" atheist? What will be the atheist's standards?

Atheist ethics comes from those ideas that fills in the blank with something in this world. The fact that atheists have their choice of what to value makes atheist ethics relative. The fact that an atheist ultimate value is something in this world has the advantage that they can choose to value objective things, making their personal ethics objective. Atheists have the objective experience of living in this world that they see in front of them. Morality would then not emanate from a supreme being; but rather from their own belonging to a world larger than themselves . Their dependencies confer obligations upon us- these are built into being human.

Now that I have set up my standards…then it is possible for an atheist to have his foundation of morality!

Epistemology of Morality
It seems "Isang Kaibigan" would like to lecture me on the epistemology of morality…hohum…sorry…not interested.

Anyway, since this guy is obviously a believer, it is my assumption that he believed that morality came from a supernatural source…hence a god. Yet the candidates for possible objects of moral knowledge are divided into three categories: natural (objects that are knowable only through experience), non-natural (but not supernatural), and theological (or supernatural). I don't need to elaborate, but base on my first answers, it's obvious that my source rely on something that is not…eh supernatural.

If atheism is true, will slavery be objectively evil? Why? (How can evil be evil and good be good if atheism is true?)

I was wondering what atheism has to do with slavery here. We are talking about ethics from a so-called Christian God…but if "Isang Kaibigan" insisted…Well…it is quite difficult to be objective about something something that's purely subjective…anyway, let us assume for a while that morality is objective. Now given, that still doesn't follow that morality, if objective, must be handed by a supernatural agent as Ravi Zacharias admitted in his book " Can Man Live Without God?" – " For a philosophy (for Zacharias, atheism is a philosophy) that define life apart from God, there is a plethora of options." (p. 56)

In your case @ "Isang Kaibigan", if atheism is correct, slavery is still evil (objective) because its value is derive from empathy from other conscious beings. Since humans are social animals, it is not surprising that a sort morality will emerge naturally in human population. That's why our species survived in the first place.

Servitude is evil, is not only defined by religious morality @ "Isang Kaibigan". Rational morality – morality based on human values for his survival, well-being and happiness – is also capable to create an objective structure of moral theory. In essence, morality is a natural feature of humans and we don't need a god to dictate or imposed his divine fiats in order for us to understand what is good or evil.

It is presumptuous to think that our own moral standards should judge God and tell Him what is right and wrong. God’s unchangeably just nature is the standard of justice.

So according to "Isang Kaibigan", what Giesler is saying is that God’s commandments flows from His nature. It is not arbitrary for God but rather natural for God to command such and such. He cannot command otherwise. He unchanging nature means He is consistent with His rules…better yet…God is good all the time. But that doesn't tell us anything about what goodness is.

Isang Kaibigan (or Giesler) argument presumes that moral values proceed from and are defined by God. Then may I ask, "Why is God's nature good? Is it because God says so, or because it mindlessly conforms to a standard greater than God?"

Now if God did choose to change his mind on what is morally allowed (Example: to make killing acceptable) then there is no way "Isang Kaibigan" nor Giesler could complain: what was bad is now good, by definition, with no other justification needed.

If they will say that “God wouldn’t change his mind and make killing okay, because God is good and killing is wrong,” then they are attempting to hold God to a moral standard beyond or independent to Himself.

Ta-Ta!
John ther Atheist

Well anyway, I presume that he assumes that objective moral values and duties exist. If my presumption is wrong, then he probably believes in relative morality.
My question is, if atheist is true, on what ground does atheistic morality stand on? This is a question of ontology. If this is settled, then I can move on to the epistemology of morality, which is actually his issue here.

For example, he suggested that God should have abolished slavery. If atheism is true, will slavery be objectively evil? Why?
(You gotta research on the whole Biblical stance on slavery, not just pick up a part without regard to the whole.)

Please clarify also your objections from #5 to 8. You made no comment about why they were evil commands.

I also think he did not understand what Geisler meant when he asked “But does that statement just tells us that Christian ethics is arbitrary in nature?” God’s commandments flows from His nature. It is not arbitrary for God but rather natural for God to command such and such. He cannot command otherwise. He unchanging nature means He is consistent with His rules.

Moreover, granting without conceding that God is morally imperfect, that does not necessarily mean that atheism is true.

Let me go back to my main question: what is the foundation of the morality of atheism? (How can evil be evil and good be good if atheism is true?)

It's funny how they would say the mind of god is unknowable, and yet, every member of their religion has an interpretation about what god is trying to say in the holy book.

Who should you be more afraid of:

A godless heathen who does good despite not having a religion, or a zealot who ONLY does good because he/she thinks his deity says so?

Awesome post!

in every chatroom i went to