"Morality can exist without God."

If the material universe is all that exists, then it’s impossible to ground objective, binding morality. The claim that certain actions are "good" and others ought not be done presupposes that humans and the universe have an ultimate purpose, which contradicts atheism. There’s no reason to think that undesigned, conscious matter would be obligated to behave in a certain way, or that a purposeless universe could have an official moral standard. Atheists usually speak about morality as if it’s objective, but their explanations reduce it to nothing more than an evolved, useful fiction to aide survival and reproduction.

"You don’t need God or religion to be a good person. Atheists are living proof of this."  

People who say this don’t understand the morality debate. Virtually no one denies that atheists do good deeds. The real question is wether or not objective good and evil can exist in an undesigned universe. We can’t answer that question by merely examining the behaviors of atheists or anyone else. 

"Morality is a product of evolution. We can observe primitive forms of morality in the animal kingdom."

Simply observing behaviors in nature cannot tell us which behaviors are right or wrong, or if objective morality even exists. It’s true that chimps and other animals exhibit behaviors of empathy and selflessness, but it’s also true that they have violent tribal wars, eat their young, and forcibly copulate. There are no scientific reasons to assume that empathy is a correct behavior or that rape is inherently immoral since they’re both means to the same end; survival and reproduction. The moment we attach value judgements to pragmatic, evolved behaviors, we leave the realm of science and impose philosophical claims that can’t simply be assumed. To prove that objective morality came from evolution, you first have to demonstrate how metaphysical truths (inherent right and wrong) can emerge from a biological process (natural selection). Otherwise, grounding morality in biological evolution reduces it to nothing more than an evolved, useful fiction to help our genes get into the next generation. 

"Science can tell us if a behavior is right or wrong based on wether or not it contributes to human well-being." (thesis of Sam Harris’ book, The Moral Landscape)

Sam Harris’s argument relies completely on the philosophical assumption that human well-being is the correct, universal standard for measuring which behaviors are right or wrong. And yet, he never provides scientific evidence to validate this premise. It’s merely a subjective conviction he holds dogmatically. If we remove our human bias and look at nature objectively, there’s no scientific reason to think that human well-being is somehow a greater good than the well-being of cockroaches, bacteria, or the planet. No experiment can be conducted to prove that gassing humans is more evil than gassing cockroaches, or that human genocide is worse than killing millions of bacteria with hand sanitizer. Because there isn’t a way, even in principle, to prove or falsify Sam’s central claim, it’s disqualified from being classified as science.

In his book, The Moral Landscape, Harris only devotes two pages to defending his presupposition that morality is objectively grounded in human well-being. This is somewhat surprising since his entire book stands or falls on this premise. On pages 32 and 33 he offers three responses to anyone skeptical of his central premise: 1. He challenges readers to think of an alternative source of value that isn’t conscious. His conclusion is that whatever you can imagine is "by definition the least interesting thing in the universe, and therefore can’t be a source of moral value". 2. He states that it’s a waste of time to imagine transcendent sources of value. 3. He attacks weak religious alternatives to the problem. In summary, Sam’s defends his position as follows:

Human well-being is what grounds morality because alternative explanations are uninteresting and a waste of time to think about. Furthermore, all religious counter-examples are dishonest and incoherent.

From a logical standpoint, it’s irrelevant wether or not Sam finds alternative moral foundations uninteresting or thinks they’re a waste of time to think about. Even if we agree with him, it doesn’t follow that human well-being is the official criterion for moral goodness, or that we’re obligated to value human life. 

"Objective morality can exist within a subjective framework. In order to Evaluate if an action is good or evil, it must be measured by some standard. It doesn’t matter wether that standard is subjective opinion or objective truth; once you have a standard, then assessing the morality of an action within that standard becomes objective." -Matt Dilahunty 

While it’s true that you can make objective assessments within a subjective framework, Matt’s argument reduces moral codes to nothing more than subjective, pragmatic contracts that require agreement to be binding. For example, if a society agrees that the color blue is the greatest possible good and the color red is the worst possible evil, then it’s objectively true that painting your house red in that society would be "immoral" according to their subjective moral framework. But anyone who doesn’t agree with their moral standard does nothing wrong if they paint their house red. Likewise, anyone who rejects Matt’s subjective moral framework based on human flourishing does nothing objectively immoral if they partake in rape, torture, or genocide. In fact, these behaviors can objectively good for people whose moral framework defines goodness in a way that promotes these behaviors. 

While Matt’s view of morality is capable of creating functional contracts based on subjective standards, it fails to provide a way to measure which subjective moral standard is correct. If Matt is right that morality is grounded in agreement, then no moral standard is inherently more authoritative or better than the other; they’re just different systems with different goals. 

“If you found out that God wasn’t real, would you lose your sense of right and start committing crimes? If your answer is no, then you’ve accepted my position that you don’t need God to be good”. -Michael Shermer

The behavior of ex-religious people is irrelevant to wether or not it’s possible for objective morality to exist without God. Of course you don’t need to believe in God to do good, but the definition of good is arbitrary and ungrounded if the material universe is all that exists. The claim that certain actions should or shouldn’t be done presupposes that humans and the universe have an ultimate purpose, which contradicts atheism. 

"How do we know if something is right or wrong? Just ask the victim and you’ll get your answer." -Michael Shermer

Shermer’s "ask first principle" has built in assumptions that contradict atheism. It presupposes that objective, universal right and wrong exists, and that empathy is inherently right. However, if all that exists is the material universe, there’s no reason to think anyone is obligated to treat others as they want to be treated. 

"Morality is subjective and changes over time."

The idea that morality is subjective and changeable is the only logically consistent view an atheist can hold. It’s the idea that moral values and duties are nothing more than a matter of opinion, and that no behavior is inherently right or wrong. However, if atheists accept this view, they also have to accept that it completely takes away their ability to impose their moral opinions on others. If morality is grounded in subjects (human opinion), then there’s no universal, binding moral standard. Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. had very different moral views, but neither view is more authoritative or correct without a universal moral standard to compare them to. We may feel that racism and genocide are wrong, but in a world of subjective morality they are good and necessary behaviors to some people, and we have no right to impose our values on them.

Objections to theistic morality and the Bible. 

When debating morality, atheists often avoid defending their assumptions by criticizing theistic morality and the Bible instead. Many of their questions are legitimate and interesting, but they’re also red herrings that confuse and divert the discussion away from the central question: “If atheism is true and the material world is all that exists, is it possible to ground objective, binding morality?". It’s important to remember that even if atheists are right that Christianity doesn’t have the answer and the Bible is a terrible book, it doesn’t make the problem of moral grounding go away for atheists. That said, there are good answers to their questions.

"The Bible is the worst place to get our morality because it condemns homosexuality, promotes slavery, and commands genocide."

If atheism is true, then there would be no such thing as a correct, universal set of morals to determine wether or not the Bible is a poor moral guide. However, the Bible provides insight into their questions: 

Homosexuality

In our current culture, people view same-sex attraction as the primary feature of a person’s identity. Therefore, when the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, people think it’s opposing a class of people rather than a specific action. However, the Bible doesn’t link human identity with sexual arousal. It teaches that all people are equally made in God’s image, regardless of what sexual desires we have (Genesis 1:27, James 3:9). So when the Bible condemns "homosexuality", it’s condemning the practice of homosexual sex—not the existence of people who happen to have homosexual desires (Romans 1:26-28). Neither are they singled out since God equally condemns all forms of sex outside of marriage, including heterosexual sex (1 1 Corinthians 1 6:9-10). We’re never judged for having temptations that we didn’t choose; we’re only judged when lust, fantasize, or act on them (Matthew 5:28). Either way, we can’t dismiss the Bible’s moral code simply on the basis of gut feelings and current cultural mores. Claiming that your views on homosexuality are correct raises the obvious question of why your moral opinion is objective and binding to all people in an undesigned universe.

Slavery

The Bible never promotes slavery but allows for a heavily restricted version of it. Bible approved slavery is the voluntary exchange of labor for material needs—a way for people facing starvation to get food, shelter and security. Everything that makes normal slavery evil is forbidden in the Bible to protect slaves: Kidnapping, forced labor, racism, abuse, exploitation, rape, murder, and owning another person. (Colossians 4:1, Ephesians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Matthew 19:19, Galatians 3:28). If you imagine dehumanizing chattel slavery when you read the word "slave" in the Bible, then you're importing a concept that Scripture strongly opposes. To accurately critique the Bible's stance on slavery you must first understand the slave/master relationship it allows. For more on this topic, click here.

Genocide

The Bible strongly forbids us from committing violence and murder and violence and commands us to treat love even our enemies (Exodus 20:13, Matthew 5:44). When skeptics say the Bible commands genocide, they’re referring to when God commanded the Jewish nation in the Old Covenant to drive out the Canaanites and kill those who refused to leave the land. However, it would be dishonest to call this genocide since it had nothing to do with their race or ethnicity, but was a direct judgment from God for their sins of child sacrifice, bestiality, temple prostitution, and idolatry. It was a specific command to a specific people, at a specific time in history, never to be repeated or mimicked. For more on this topic, click here.

"The religious person who does good because he’s afraid of going to hell is less moral than when atheist who does good for the sake of goodness."

It’s true that selfish motives contaminate our good deeds (Proverbs 16:2, 21:27).  According to the Bible, Christians shouldn’t do good just to avoid hell; it’s the wrong motive and it simply won’t work. Our good deeds should be a thankful response to the good that Jesus did for us when He paid the penalty for our sins on the cross (Colossians 3:17). When we trust in Christ, we go to heaven on the basis of His good works rather than our own, and don’t have the burden of trying to work our way there. This frees us up to do genuinely good deeds and glorify God with our lives. That’s why obedience in the New Covenant is grounded in love rather than a list of rules (Mark 12:28-32 , Galatians 5:13-14). However, if morality is the product of evolution, then inherent goodness can’t exist even in principle. Our concept of "doing good" would be nothing more a useful fiction that provides an evolutionary survival advantage.

"Moral principles existed before monotheism or religion"

It’s true that morality existed before organized religion since morality is grounded in God’s character. During the period from Adam to Abraham, people simply worshiped the creator God and didn’t have a religion. After pagan cults begin to rise, God distinguished His people by established Judaism through Abraham and Moses. From the beginning of time, God progressively revealed information about Himself to the world, culminating in the arrival of Jesus and the recording of the New Testament. Pointing out that morality existed before religion does nothing to discredit Christianity since it aligns with the Bible’s account of history. 

"If morality is grounded in God, then that mean morality is subjective since God is a subject. Why should we care what God thinks about morality even if He does exist?"

It’s true that God is a subject, but if God created reality for a specific purpose, then there’s a right and wrong way to behave in relation to that purpose. For example, if God created humans to glorify Him, then worshiping a false god would be objectively wrong since it contradicts our purpose. We are free to disagree with God on the proper way for his creation to behave, but our opinion would obviously be wrong. Only the creator of something can determine the proper use of their creation. For example, if a potter designs a vase specifically for the purpose of holding flowers, then it’s both subjectively and objectively true what the proper use of the vase is. We can insist that the vase is a bowl for eating cereal and may even try to use it as one, but our opinion would be objectively wrong according to the Potter’s purpose of the vase. There’s no reason to think that the arbitrary, changing moral opinions of created beings would have equal authority as the all-knowing designer of them and their universe.

"Is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it’s good? If it’s because God commands it, then morality is arbitrary. If it’s independent of God, then God is unnecessary for morality to exist." -Euthyphro dilemma 

The problem with the Euthyphro Dilemma is that it’s a false dilemma. The third option is that God’s attributes are the source and standard of morality. If so, then morality is not independent of God, and is not arbitrary since He only commands things in alignment with his unchanging attributes. Right and wrong are a reflection of God’s attributes as they relate to His purpose for the world He created. For example, God commands us not to lie because telling the truth is in alignment with the His character (Hebrews 6:18, Proverbs 12:22). We know that what he commands is good, because he is the source and standard of what we call moral goodness. 

"The existence of moral dilemmas discredits objective, biblical morality."

The existence of moral dilemmas does nothing to discredit objective, biblical morality. Being forced to choose between two immoral options doesn’t mean that immorality can’t exist.  The real question is how God judges people who are faced with moral dilemmas. The Bible doesn’t elaborate on this, but we know that God is perfectly just and knows the motives of our hearts. This means no one will ever be judged unfairly for being placed in a situation out of their control. That said, it seems that we are obligated to chose the lesser of two evils when faced with a moral dilemma. In the example of Nazis asking for the location of Jews, lying to a murderer seeking to harm others is a lesser evil than being an accomplice to the murder of innocent people. A similar situation happened with Rahab, who hid the Israeli spies from a wicked, murderous government that would have killed them. And while she was never directly praised for lying, she was praised for her faith in God and doing the right thing in this moral dilemma (Hebrews 11:31). 

"Morality is doing what’s right regardless of what you’re told. Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right."

This atheist meme raises the obvious question of who gets to decide what "doing right" entails. If the material universe is all that exists, then there’s no authoritative or discoverable moral code "out there". People have invented thousands of conflicting moral codes and we have no reason to think the atheist who says this has more moral authority than the others. Clever slogans cannot replace replace logical arguments.