Jesus understood the Dilemma and articulated it quite well, in person and by His Spirit:
You claim morality can only come from Christianity.Ã‚Â I guess that why the ancient Greek civilization which existed for 1000 years before the advent of Christianity had no morals.Ã‚Â They had no time to develop the concepts of fairness in law, or democracy.Ã‚Â It was all just running around raping, stealing from your neighbor, and eating babies.
Some things are almost too silly to comment on.Ã‚Â
Jesus acknowledged that even evil people are still capable of performing good deeds...
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
The whole concept of morality can be exercised by unbelievers in varying degrees and to some success. The problem is that; it is not a product of a naturalist's or humanist's worldview framework. It comes from somewhere else which makes the social structure of evolution (survival of the fittest) at odds with the practiced morality of those who believe the former.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Morality is an illusory and convenient byproduct of social pressure that has no intrinsic worth, foundation, or unalienable reality. It's merely the product of popular opinion and cultural or oligarchical force. That is, of course, if philosophical naturalism and evolution are true.
Basically, you borrow morality from perceived tradition, or made up pretend, because it is not transcendent, just a fluke of nature really.
Is abortion right or wrong? - Let's take a poll, cast a vote and beseech the oligarchy for new laws.
Is it okay to proselytize people and share your religious ideas in public? - Let's take a poll, cast a vote and beseech the oligarchy for new laws.
Is it okay to pray in public? - Let's take a poll, cast a vote and beseech the oligarchy for new laws.
Should we take from the rich by force and give to the needy? - Let's take a poll, cast a vote and beseech the oligarchy for new laws.
You can be an atheist and be ever so benevolent and kind in your behavior but where does it come from and what determines that it has merit and value over the guy who decides his time is better spent pillaging and raping other complex chunks of conscious matter and devising how not to get caught. How do we then affirm right from wrong for the person who disagrees with the social contract?
What if this pillaging rapist holds the highest office in the land and has no rule over themselves based on this framework, are they still morally wrong? If so, why?
What if a person just disagrees with the social contract and their only crime is not participating in it. Do they forfeit their rights since their rights flow from the social contract?
We aren't talking about unheard of circumstances. Just turn on the news or read a history book. It's filled with people doing those things that are right in their own eye. Are they actually and truly wrong for the crimes they commit or is it just relative to the climate of the culture they live in?