Paul Copan, ‘Can Michael Martin be a Moral Realist?: Sic Et Non’,

Beckwith argues that a non-personal ground of an objective moral law that transcends human subjectivity "is inadequate in explaining the guilt and shame one feels when one violates the moral law. For it is persons, not rules or principles, that elicit in us feelings of guilt and shame." As Paul Copan asks: "Why should we feel guilt towards abstract moral principles?" Since it would be inappropriate to feel guilt or shame before an abstract (impersonal) moral principle, and since it is appropriate to feel guilt and shame before the objective moral law, that moral law cannot be an abstract moral principle. In other words, objective moral values must be ontologically grounded in a transcendent personality before whom it is appropriate to feel moral guilt (it's worth noting that the possibility of objective forgiveness for moral guilt is equally dependent upon the moral law having a personal ground).

Atheistic science never had a more fierce bulldog than .

Moreover, nothing would be immoral then, everything would be permitted, even cannibalism.

Atheism and morality - Conservapedia

Presumably the difference is (if we want to chalk it up to morality) that the good husband finds his wife's happiness a reward and her displeasure a punishment. This is the very definition of love. The other is more or less indifferent to her happiness. And if he finds her displeasure a reward, he's an abuser. So even if we assume a substantial agreement between Christians and atheists on what is right among people and take that as given, the question of morality in action isn't, "are you doing it for a reward"; it's, "what reward are you doing it for?"

Where do atheists get their morality? - Kids Without God

Mainstream Christianity, no doubt, somewhat schizophrenically alternates between reward morality and categorical imperative "because God said so" morality. But as C.S. Lewis noted in , "If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith." To use the ideal of "right for right's sake" as a gotcha, contrasted with a reward motivation, doesn't really say anything except that atheists must be rather aimless. If their goal is – not to redefine reward, but to be unmotivated by reward at all – then there can be no purposeful action at all.

BBC - Religions - Atheism: Morality and secularism

The soundbite speaks specifically to ultimate reward and punishment not all reward and punishment. It is a rebuke of the argument that people do things to please God or to stay his wrath. Atheists make this point as a response to the christian argument that morality is rooted solely in the word of God; and atheists must therefore not be moral. But as you pointed out atheists take action just like Christians and do find common ground in moral thinking. “Obviously, though, atheists act. They take pleasure in things. They even genuinely care for other people.”

Where do atheists get their morality

To better illustrate the previous thought; atheism frequently professes full faith in science as being the one and only true source of all knowledge. When the topic of physics is approached, scientific facts are presented, and the discussion then revolves around the scientific facts. Similarly with most all other topics, whether they be of biology, history, psychology, or astronomy, always are scientific facts brought to the table for further discussion. But when the topic of ethics surfaces, scientific facts are tossed out the window, leaving the debate to be fueled by unbridled emotional impulses. Emotional impulses are predominately the product of subconscious reasoning, which clearly describes the quantity and quality of reasoning that atheism and other popular sects bring to the discussion. Atheism is a system of beliefs, and the beliefs are what rule over the emotional impulses. If atheism were truly an intellectually superior sect as many atheists often claim, why then has atheism not produced a superior interpretation of ethics?

Atheism and morality quotes - Conservapedia

We’re using two different definitions of moral here. Can atheists act in a way that most people would consider “right”? Sure, anyone can do that. Can atheists act in a way that deals with the underlying sin problem of their soul? No, that requires one to act with God himself as one’s ultimate reward. Atheists are arguing the former point, Christians are arguing the latter, and both think the other point is pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things.