Morals for the Athiest

So where do athiests & humanists get their morals from? Or rather, we seem as a species to hate a vacuum, when we remove God what do we replace Him with? What is the believer to understand from the non believer?

Well lets start off in a place that most people won't disagree. Whatever your belief or disbelief is, it comes under one of only 2 over arching worldview categories. Just 2. In my thinking, right or wrong, its 2 and only two.
1) We were created by a transcendant God-Creator
 
2) We weren't and therefore we a result of mutations, accidents, improvements but which/whatever all a result of nature unsteered by anything other than laws of nature and fate...good & bad.

So with that firmly in mind, where do some non believers in God think morals come from.

I hit Google, it gave plenty of results, this was just first on the list, this webpage.

http://kidswithoutgod.com/teens/ask/where-do-atheists-get-their-morality/

It gives a long page of explantion from a god non believer, Dr Darrel Ray. Here's Darrel's descriptor...

"Dr. Darrel Ray is an atheist, humanist, and psychologist. He is the author of The God Virus, and specializes in issues relating to religious deconversion. "

I might return to this descriptor towards the end, upfront might just look at his answer to the question he got from...well we don't know who sent it in. It's

Dear Darrel,

"On the kids half of this website, Darwin the dog tells us to “Be nice to people, just because it’s the right thing to do!” but I was raised to believe that morality was given to us by God. Where do atheists get their morality if not from God’s teachings?"

Now the last sentence is the important bit and its something most people who believe in God or don't should ask themselves because its a valid question that should get more effort and time. I think you have to give Dr ray two thumbs up for addressing the question.
However, the majority of his reply uses poor  misleading understanding of the Bible to try and make an atheist point. He should at least make his points in such a way that a person who has never heard of the Bible can understand...using atheist perspective. Or put a bit more fairly, he should have his argument based without Bible referencing so a person who has never ever read the Bible can lock onto HIS logic, not his unfortunate view of Scripture which is terribly flawed and slanted.
Perhaps I can go through his Bible twisting point at a time...at some point but just fast forward past that and head to the final paragraph where he finally delivers his view without Scriptural twisting.

Where do we get our morality? From the constant development of our culture. From the evolution of laws and guidelines that help us create a peaceful and prosperous society. We are who create our morality and we pass it down to our children and grandchildren. That is why Muslim people can live prosperously in the US along side Baptists, Mormons, Hindus and Atheists. We have a morality that supersedes all religions and is beholden to none.The last sentence is pretty telling very interesting. Atheist's "morality supersedes all religions and is beholden to none"That's a judgement call. Beholden to none very possibly but "supersedes"?
Says who?
Possibly whoever has the greater numbers is all but there's no indication why the evolved morals of atheists supersedes all others. One group of animals get together and decide something, what exactly makes it binding upon any other animal that disagrees or a group of animals that disagree. Animals, because that's what the atheist can have us believe, we're all just members of the animal kingdom.
Put another way one tribe says it's teachings, beliefs and morals are greater than others...why?
Early explorers probably thought their morals were greater than those belonging to remote island tribes. Remote island tribes probably thought their morals were greater and superseded the white man's. How'd things evolve there? Well...gun & sword helped evolution along pretty fast but in some cases the difference of moral opinion evolved differently for a time with the white explorer having a different moral stance that seem to be superseded whilst they sat in the cannibal's pot cooking.

It seems the atheist moral evolution is predicated upon the "Might is Right" notion.
Ironic since that's what he was very much against when he wrongly took Scripture out of context in most of his view.

It seems very much a case that force of the majority or the most well armed dictates which way the "evolution" of morals goes in the humanist world. Might is Right.
What makes their morals binding?

Application of law (might) against anyone not compliant...which still means there's no escape route. To the group who do not believe in God or morals come from God, morals are all rather subjective and where they may differ, its the democratic numbers or the might or the sword that decides.

It is a fact that where ever there is man, we find jurisdiction. Someone has jurisdiction. So in a western country where Same Sex Marriage is legal versus a country where its banned and homosexuality results in execution, who's evolved morals supersede whose? Well it gets odder here. Most will argue that the non religious are greater...whilst believing God doesn't exist religion must be an evolved social construct guiding morals. So who's is greater?

Here it diverges into 2 splits...
1) The West is superior because it's non religious and the Muslim countries are twisted
2) They're different but both right for the nations respectively because morals are relative especially under cultural and regional differences

Either way under the model Dr Ray is proposing, either side could invade the other, conquer the other, install their own morals (whether we personally agree or not) and that's evolution.

It is amazing how often the secular utopian model of morality formation is very much identical to the Marxist totalitarian military state.

Is there a rise in Alt Right? Yes to some degree.
Is there a rise in Alt Left? Yes to some degree.

I think there's more Marxist dogma gathering pace and many people are either unaware or wrongly reject it. It's like anti Authoritarian dogma...it can sometimes get to the point where the Antis actually over throw the authority of a government and then what?

Animal Farm. The pigs rise to the top after killing the farmer and then become the farmers of all the other animals. Marxism. Or in the current mess Neo-Marxist.

Its not all Che Guevara, bad facial hair and AK-47s.
Sometimes its a just an aggressive "evolution" on moral pillars.

Religion is seen as a corner stone of authority if not moral authority. Those that oppose it and vigorously push to deconstruct it so everyone is free to do whatever they want...that's part of Neo-Marxism.

Hippies of the 60s & 70s...Neo Marxists.
Counter Culture Activists...Neo Marxists.
Anti God Activists...Neo Marxists

And who are some of the Neo Marxist enablers? Well among them strange as it may seem are churches that don't keep to their Scriptures and try to evolve their morals.

Dr Ray's descriptor? I said I'd return to that. He states he specialises in "specializes in issues relating to religious deconversion."I think he does. He's not non Christian, he's trying to evolve morals and the world into a version he's chosen for himself. Thankfully he's not a violent man or he'd be using might to convert. Instead he's read the Old Testament completely out of context.
Not entirely sure if he's deliberately, knowingly done that but proves not all evolution is moral.
Perhaps morals don't evolve.

Me I'm just asking someone to confirm...is it a clear case of Might is Right?
Given different turn of events we, the entire planet might have all been cannibals or Hindu or Genghis Khan subjects forever or in a world wide communist state?

I asked this once and was told "No oppress people long enough they'll rebel and take control"

Back to Animal Farm and "Might is Right" again...only the winners decide what's binding.
No wonder so many Neo-Marxists are so darn angry.