Let's try to agree on a few definitions first, and then see if there is something meaningful to argue about. If you
define good/evil, moral/immoral in terms of God, then by
your definitions atheistic morality is a self contradictory and nonsensical term. I think that most people have a different definition of morality, so that atheistic morality is a topic worthy of debate, and not a tautological impossibility.
I suggest that we agree that "sin" and "holiness" can be defined in terms of God, and that morality should be
defined in God-less terms. (This does not mean that a God believer can't
believe that good/right/moral actions are those which are pleasing to God and that bad/evil/immoral acts are those which displease God; it just means that we don't define those words in terms of pleasing God.)
I am willing to concede that if we define "sin" and "holiness" in terms of God, then to an atheist there is no sin or holiness. If we define "morality" as the code of conduct put forward by a society or accepted by an individual, then I think that atheistic morality is perfectly reasonable. I would even go so far as to say that it is a proven fact - there are atheists with moral codes, and the evidence of this is very convincing. Proof of God's existence is much less convincing to many people, including me.
On many questions of morality, the overwhelming majority of people agree. On other questions of morality, there is a much more even split (often split 3 ways; eg. "It's right!" "It's wrong!" "I'm not sure!"). In the sense of having unanimous agreement, there is no "absolute" morality, regardless of whether or not you base your moral code on religious beliefs.
Given that unanimity is impossible, and that agreement on some basic principles is fairly wide-spread, what do we mean by the term "absolute morality"? Does it mean that an act is good or evil regardless of who does it and what the circumstances are? Does it simply mean "consistent and meaningful"?
I feel that you insult non-believers whenever you imply: <ul type="square">[*] They must be immoral or amoral.[*]Their moral judgements are "not meaningful".[*]They are not entitled to an opinion on issues of morality.[*]By admitting they don't believe in God, they somehow imply that their moral and ethical judgements lack validity and are meaningless.[/list]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems ridiculous to me to hear an atheist, one who admits that his views have no real substance, validity, import, etc., rant about how horrible the war is (or how noble it is), how we should believe (or not believe) this about the environment, etc. I understand this is a philosophically delicate topic, and I have not effectively articulated my thoughts to the degree I wish I could. But I do believe my basic ideas are correct, being (1) w/i atheism, there is no such thing as objective morality; (2) the most atrocious crimes committed in the history of the world are not really 'evil' in the sense that most people understand 'evil' to mean (poorly stated, but im tired and multitalbing, too!); (3) murder, rape, etc. is not really, objectively, and absolutely wrong and evil; (4) all arguments in such a world have absolutely zero moral truth inherent in them.
[/ QUOTE ]
I find this characterization quite offensive. I think that your reliance on God for justifying your views on morality has somehow blinded you to the fact that other peoples views on morality have a lot of meaning, validity, and import even if they don't invoke God is justifying those views.