I disagree with Evanescence's take that morality has to be given to us by god. And while I don't completely agree will her following statement -
As a previous poster joked before "they will do good if it is for survival" that is exactly the atheist worldview, "survival of the fittest"
I don't think the following counterpoint is fully convincing:
Nonsense. Survival of the fittest is a maxim relating to Darwinian evolution. It is not in any way a moral imperative.
I agree with the main point here. But juxtapose that statement with the following:
That's obviously not true. Good and bad do not depend on mythology. Something is bad if it is detrimental to the lives of sentient beings, and good if beneficial to them.(Those definitions can obviously be examined and explored in more detail.)
Here's my minor quibble. Evolutionary psychology argues that this very same principle was crucial in the evolution of our morality. So in a sense I can't dispute with Evanescence that "survival" had something to do with "good" behaviour early on (and its presently in our wiring). But that goes for ALL of us.
I agree with
FunkyDerek, that in the here and now, as sentient beings, we can rise above non-sentient selective pressures, and now rationally look at our codes and adapt them to new ethical situations as they arise in our evolving society. Hopefully that may help her to see where some of us relative moralists are coming from.