Morality, for those who do not follow any pre-defined, religious sources for moral guidelines, probably derive their morals from their parents, their friends, and what is known as "socially acceptable behavior".
Read Aristotle - NICHOMACHEAN ETHICS - One must be virtuous [ethical] in order to live a happy life... No God required.
The self-proclaimed atheist is a self-claimed absolute relativist,...therefore, 'to know' for him is dis-allowed.
He'll find out about 'know' in hell if he doesn't trust/believe the 'Truth' of his saviour Jesus Christ.
St. John 14:6
I believe it's built-in...that's why people have differing moral views.
objectivism and Ayn Rand is the way I do it. But I do know that the Torah has many good morals.
The 'golden rule' - treat others as you'd like to be treated, does not need the fear of hellfire or promise of heaven to work as an effective guide. I think that if we grow up right as balanced, sensitive and observant people - regardless of faith or affiliation - the outlines of what's right and wrong are not only fairly clear but also inherent in ones' heart. Perhaps you would see this as a manifestation of God's will that has the potential to run in us all. I am not a Christian, but know - in a deep, beyond intellectual fashion - that hurting people is wrong and helping people is right. The inability to truly accept or live up to these standards at some times is what makes me [and the rest of us] human and - in (I imagine) your terms - in need of faith.
I wonder, in pose your question in reverse, is it only the heaven / hell thing that keeps Christians on the right path? I imagine not, and that they don't need to think of God before thinking twice about doing something wrong.
The simple reality is that most of the rules put forth by religion (most religions have a core set of rules that are common) are just plain good ideas that make for a more functional society and subsequently have a solid secular use. Let's take a look at the base rules of Christianity, the Ten Commandments:
1 - 4 are solidly religious in nature and would, obviously, not be very useful to an atheist.
5 - Honour thy father and thy mother - one's father and mother are the first authority figures in your life, they are your instructors and protectors, and the only people in this world with a good reason to help you out of a jam. Good people to stay on good terms with.
6 - Thou shalt not kill - from a societal level murder is considered the ultimate crime, if there's strength in numbers the pointless reduction of those numbers weakens a society.
7 - Thou shalt not commit adultery - the family unit is the building block of society, adultery weakens the strength of the family and weakens society.
8 - Thou shalt not steal - trust is another important factor in a society, the society that cannot trust itself must devote energies to defend itself from itself that could be better used elsewhere
9 - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour - another trust building rule, when neighbors lie about each other no good will ever come from it
10 - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's - this really builds on 7-9, when you don't covet what your neighbor has your less likely to take it, whether that taking be adulterous, theft or lies against him.
So here we see that 6 of the 10 commandments (a solid 60%) have excellent secular ussage to build strong societies filled with people that contribute to the whole and through said contributions improve their own lives. And you will see variations on these 6 rules in most of the world's religions, and even in atheist philosophies like the Natural Laws. But let's take it further, there are 14 other less talked about rules in Christianity, the are the 7 deadly sins and 7 holy virtues, lets list them, Sins:
pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, sloth
Virtues:
faith, hope, charity, prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude
Now what we see in those are again solid peaces of advice, only one of which is religious in nature and one can argue that faith doesn't have to be in God but can also be in your be in your fellow man and society, that will help a person lead a longer more fulfilled life and also help society as a whole.
So in the 24 big rules we have 19 that are solid universal rules that apply primarily to secular society and make just plain good sense regardless of ones religion, 1 that applies equally to both the secular and nonsecular sides of life, and 4 that are 100% religious in nature. And those 19 universal rules exist in many forms throughout the world, in religious, philosophical and legal discussions. And that is where atheists get their morality.
See this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1327472/posts
for an example of Christian relativism.
In the Old Testament [and, the poster claims, endorsed by Jesus]:
START QUOTE "the death penalty [is] for rapists, (Deut. 22:25) sodomy, (Lev. 18:22, 20:13) fornication, (Lev. 21:9) (Deut. 22:21-24) perjury, (Zech. 5:4) kidnapping, (Ex.21:16, Deut. 24:7) witchcraft, (Ex. 22:18) for striking or cursing father or mother, (Ex. 21:15,17, Lev. 20:9) disobedience to parents, (Deut. 21:18-21) theft, (Zech. 5:3,4) blasphemy, (Lev. 24:11-14,16,23) sabbath desecration, (Ex. 35:2, Num. 15:32-36) propagating false doctrines, (Deut. 13:1-10) refusing to abide by the decision of court, (Deut. 17:12) even homosexuals. (Lev. 20:13)" END QUOTE
However, there are surely few Christians today who would advocate the death penalty for all those 'crimes' [working / shopping / playing on Sundays? pre-marital sex? cursing a parent?] Not to mention the impossibility of applying all 10 Commandments to contemporary American life - no 'coveting'? The consumer economy done with.
Christian morality is in no way fixed, but rather in flux around key values that are mostly in common with every other moral / ethical system of the day.
I would like to know why to choose to accept God's law. Is it because He is powerful and can reward and punish you, or is it because He is good?
This is a serious question. Are you rooting for a team because you think it will win, or have you chosen sides because of some innate quality of the team captain?
If your moral compass is not innate, how do you make the choice?
"How do they know what is right and wrong?"
God has writen it on ALL our hearts, so ALL know, and are withOUT excuse. (Especially Romans 1:19)
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest IN them; for God HATH shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are withOUT excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Most atheists use their own rational conclusions based on how they think people in society *should* behave. I would argue in many cases, this actually amounts to simply sustaining ethics created by the Judeo-Christian culture in which they have grown.
But, yes, rationalism can on its own, and very independently of religion, produce a set of ethics. The problem is that apart from either a love or God, or fear of punishment from God, those ethics rely on the application of force to keep people obedient to the system.
Sure, I might say, "Woudn't it be NICE if everyone lived this way," but reason dictates that I make exceptions for myself. On the large scale, altruism is beneficial to society as a whole, but imparts no advantage to the individual, other than what society can enforce. Absent that force, those who make personal exceptions to ethics for their own self-interest will be more successful than those who don't.
For large numbers of individuals, personal satisfaction may suffice as the societal pressure towards ethics. But there will always be powerful people for whom granting personal exemptions from ethics represents the ability to do more of what they consider good.
Now, actually, if everyone arrived at the same conclusions as to what goodness was, satisfaction could still function among even the most powerful. But the problem is that most atheists deny that there is an absolute good. There is merely what is good relative to their society. To those who do arrive at that the conclusion that there is SOMETHING which is absolutely good, they usually conclude that that is the ONLY thing which is absolutely good. And from these you get "-isms" which are created by remarkable rational thought, yet simultaneously seem preposterously shallow, such as John Stuart Mills', or Karl Marx's.
There are definitely people who lack a religious experience, who have come to recognize that there exists more objectively, transcendentally good things than they dare try to enumerate, and thus PROMOTE religion, even if they lack faith in the source of the religion. If I understand them properly, such people would include Thomas Jefferson and William F. Buckley, although I may be over-reading Buckley's rhetorical points. But such people usually regard religion well, and would hate to be called atheists.
The most dangerous thought, IMHO, among atheists, is the thought among atheists who simply haven't given a whole lot of thought to ethics. 99.9% of us are "sheeple" on a great deal of things. Anyone who denies that about themselves is simply arrogant, for we must either rely on others who are experts, or on ourselves when we are incapable of discerning the truth about more than one or two subjects which we can intensely study; the human mind is so very limited. Christ recognized our "sheepleness" when he instituted the authority of the Church, to act as our shepherd. ("Peter, pastor my lambs") Thus, a religious sheeple, like Mother Therese, is capable of doing extraordinary good -- as good as her eligion is -- by simply following her religion. An atheist sheeple will only obey those ethics which are sensible to his own reckoning. Unfortunately, since so many pick and choose their own churches these days, or decide which dogmas of the church they choose to follow, most religionists in Western Society operate the same way.
What do you mean by 'knowledge'? By 'understanding'?
Ultimately, they each make up their own.
Which ultimately means that nothing really matters.
He can't.
How do they know what is right and wrong?
Kant, Aristotle, Plato, enlightened self-interest. There are a lot of different non-religious sources that I can draw on to learn right from wrong. Some of the greatest thinkers, politicians and statesmen that the world has ever produced wrote volumes on how to live an ethical life and they never mentioned God.
It's called Natural Law. It's the basis for libertarianism. Basically it's not much different from the Golden Rule.