What is the atheistic basis of absolute morality?

Could you provide an example of an absolute moral that an atheist might hold?

Although Dennet and Dawkins miss it I give you my objective grounds for it...a system cohesion requires equilibrium, and rules of assistence and cooperation allow for its optimum efficiency in producing "work"... and while specific values are relative to the systems point of reference ultimately balance overall must be preserved...so balance and efficient communication are the objective stronghold of moral and ethics...its all about conserving energy...no big deal...

When Al Capone said that he was not involved in any violence , he stated that it was " simply bad for business". Much of the utilitarian outlook cadges natural law and "coopertion" simply because it works and doesnt gum up the wheel.
To say that a "God" iws necessary to have a mporal basis is kinda funny . When did humans make up the concept of "God"?.
IS God something that we as a speicies discovered on day? (Please note the evolution of gods to GOD as civilizations progressed)

The Priests created all the qualifiers and rules of how the gods (and God) work and interact with humans. We who are not of the priesthood just blindly obey and buy into the whole schmeggege of how God did this and how man must do that.

Youve set the bar to only make an invalid comparison between those whose morals are "God driven" and those whose morals come from rational thinking, natural law, and coopertaive existence (And some of Al Capones thinking that good neighborliness is good for business).
SO I reject your very premise for the thread. History shows how gods appeared and grew up into several versions of "one God". We as a species never "discovered" that a God was at the cenyter of everything . QWe created that concept (and the gentleman himself) in order to add order and control to the logarithmically expanding population, as well as to try to come up with some systematically organized answers to questions regarding the unknowables of our vey lives on a teeny planet.

That's what Dostoyevski's classic Crime and Punishment was about. When the hero, Roskalnikov realized that God was Dead, he became a "negative" nihilist, inferring that with the end of an absolute foundation for morality all was permissible--and killed a woman, a "bad" woman/usurer. I don't recall how he determined her moral rank.

That is all very well and nice but let me just change it all for two words...ORDER and MULTIVERSE...the first reduces moral and the second God...now what do you say to that?
Propertys are essentially similar if one removes the dumb crappy part...

whats the point for "multiverse" thats just another (at this point) hypothsesis of a bunch of mathturbatory theoretical physicists. Im an "applied kinda guy" I see all the worlds possibilities in CArtesian coordinates

I can't speak for all atheists but I can speak for myself. I don't believe there is an absolute morality. So your question doesn't make any sense. I know that theists like to believe that their god gives them an absolute morality but if you actually examine it, it clearly points out that they are modifying the supposed god provided morality to suit their own subjective morality. Despite the fact that they do this, they will constantly try to argue that they don't amend their god provided morality.

Morality is subjective and subject to the acceptance of the social group you are within. You can object to it or accept it but for the most part morality attempts to make the best unit cohesion among the group for efficiency and to prevent problems. It doesn't always work because people amend the rules to how they see fit.

This is why the god concept was invented in the first place. It makes it difficult to challenge a rule if the person handing you the rules is a made up being with supposed all powerful abilities.

There are several misunderstandings going around some of this attributes to "God" and absolute moral...for instance all powerful only means to have the power to do what is possible not what is impossible and God itself can have many meanings going from Einstein's God to the dumber definitions, it does n´t matter if one goes with Multiverse or any other mathematical model ...the problem with absolutes or relatives is reduced to the problem of causality or freedom and the remaining bits are just cultural clash...
I myself don´t have honestly the slightest clue on what freedom is about thus my need for closure in order to save logic and causality...and that in turn does n´t mean that I buy religion in any way, on the contrary...

I don´t know what kind of absolute moral is required to satisfy...but to where I stand, conservation of energy, communication efficiency, and the need to fight the 2 law of thermodynamics are all good and sufficient explanations to justify close to absolute moral and ethical rules...unless of course one is referring to an out of the system ET coming from the fifth dimension...
...and if anyone asks me why is absolutely wrong to kill a children but not wrong for a lion to kill its offspring I would reply that advance intelligence, the notion of the "I" and memory make it hard to cope with the possibility of our close ones being the next in line...besides empathy is just a sophisticated form of selfishness once the "other" always comes on the direct reason of ultimately protecting the "I"... fear is not good for creativity and efficiency, not to mention the huge amount of resources we invest to educate the future generations...by setting an X minimum moral universal standard for our species we end up describing the amount of energy we are willing and able to spend to satisfy our needs and to put away our fears...if it is the case that one can measure it then its is objective enough for me.

...In further more abstract terms one could probably find a ratio in between energy efficiency to produce work and moral effectiveness...
(...that would be a good enough fingerprint or signature of our species competence...)
(...let me just ad that leisure is maintenance thus qualify´s as work...)

...the thumbs down technocratic idiot around seems to be that kind of guy who asfixiates creativity by overrating form over substance...in sum a moron. (There I said it !)

I think you missed the obvious. I would not say the reason for not killing other humans is because of their level of intellect. Hell I know some people who are dumber than any lion yet I wouldn't kill them because of that. The difference between lions and humans is that humans are social animals and lions although can be social are able to live completely solitary. Humans have a very difficult time living completely independent of other humans. This is why we have the developed the morality of protecting our own even if they are a complete waste of resources and dumber than a rock.

Its not the case that I miss it its more the case that you could n´t keep up...see the reason we are a social species is precisely because we are clever mammals and around it goes entangled...
(forget Ants and Bees borg collective for the purpose of simplifying it)
Cooperation exponentiates our productivity our inventiveness and our singular and collective well being...or do you believe in a moral reason for trade for instance ?
...Moral is just the oil in the engine...but if you want to further discuss it properly, we might just jump to debate the natural roots of Law and their necessity...Moral is reducible to that.

I think a lot of conjecture about what people without theism think is funny.

But, in the meantime, I ran into an article that is making me think, several times over.

For christians, keep reading, as it is not all anti christian. That may be hard, but bear with it.

For me, I'm startled that I've not known and understood this guy, Lucretius.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_greenblatt

And, damn, the article is locked as available only to subscribers., or people who will pay a bit. I subscribe, temporarily.


This bothers me, the locking. My plaint is sort of aligned to Robert Gentel's thread on taxation, but of course not directly.

...further if it is not the case that I would kill stupid people is because I have memory and as a frail contingent being I am aware that tomorrow I may fall down the stairs and suddenly become stupid...
...empathy ultimately addresses my interest my own fear of suffering !

...yes it is bottom line a debate about the importance of the State...not about taxes not about Moral but about bottom line the State itself...its like asking why the Universe needs Gravity and rules...

Anyone who knows how learning is processed in brains (simulation/imitation/copy) immediately understands the success of pirate bay...sharing ideas for free exponentially increases our productivity as a whole...see TED or FORA...

These days a company takes their ideas from everywhere uses planetary resources physical and intellectual and expects to not be progressively taxed...that´s just dumb...bad accounting aside not understanding what globalization means !

If three smart people get together for the purpose of trading their goods and improving their quality of life thus agreeing to not robe each other overnight while doing business the State is born and with it the Law which establishes the morally need to conform with it...that simple !

If it is the case that one gets bankrupted because he had a bad crop, it is in the interest of the others to lend him money while he gets back in his feet...

I base my understanding of morality on the premise that the central objective of we humans (or for that matter all living entities) is the comfortable survival of our own self and the continuation of own species (till perpetuity or atleast till the time when we discover the actual purpose of our existence). Given this premise I see morality simply as a way of passing down the collective wisdom of the old. Morality is a way that helps us achieve our objectives better by keeping us away from short sighted temptations. Our ancestors must have learnt the hard way that raping women and killing people are not great things to do if one needs to survive longer. Morality ensures that this wisdom stays with us, it prevents us from falling in those same old traps and reinventing the wheel each time.