"So what's the point of doing good, if you don't think there are ultimate consequences for what you do?  I mean, where does your motivation to do good come from if you don't believe in hell?"

This was a question my best friend recently asked me.  He is a very liberal Christian, and we see eye-to-eye on many things, but this question just floored me when he asked it.  Of course there are consequences for what I do.  They are borne out by reactions from the people around me and how I affect their lives.  They are borne out by how the law decides to sanction me for my negative actions.  And they are borne out by how I feel about myself and my place in society.

This approach to actions and consequences has one very important result: there is no guarantee that I will receive punishment for any bad acts I may commit.  If I commit a murder, and nobody finds out, I escape the external consequences, and assuming I had no internal conflict with the taking of a life, I get off scot-free.  Likewise, if I live a good life, but nobody notices, I do not get any kind of a reward.  This idea is very uncomfortable for many, and I believe that this discomfort led our ancestors to invent the idea of eternal punishment and eternal reward.  It makes it somehow easier to comprehend the universe if we can assume that all bad actions are eventually punished, and that conversely, all good actions are eventually rewarded.  However, I am a realist, and I know there is no guarantee of punishment or reward; therefore, I do good acts because they are the right things to do, and I don't do bad acts because they are the wrong things to do.  I do not fear punishment for my actions; I fear the possible bad effects of my actions. In my non-belief-based morality then, my ethics are based on something real rather than something imagined.

There seems to be an assumption on the part of most religious people that there can't be any morality without a belief in a god.  A typical argument goes that humankind gets its morality from God; after all, animals certainly don't show any morality, and after all, didn't God give us the spark that made us different from animals?

Of course, as an atheist, I don't believe in God, so I reject the unproven hypothesis that we are different from animals.  (For proof that we are no different from animals, visit Walmart on Black Friday.)  However, it does seem clear that we have a moral and ethical code that is not present in other animals.  I personally believe that most of this "additional" ethical code comes from the simple fact that we are sapient creatures with the ability to derive complex answers from simple questions; indeed, I would say that the reason I am able to write this post about my own morality is the exact same reason I have that morality in the first place.

I personally have a desire to do good, and I do so because I believe it makes society better when people do good.  It's a simplistic view of things, to be sure, but it is an ethical ideal that does not rely on religion or belief in any way.  My moral code is based on the idea that it is a good thing to increase pleasure; the more people's pleasure I can increase with a given action, the better that action is.  Again, it is a simple ideal, but it does not require a belief in anything, and in addition, it is directly tied to the idea of improving the human condition.  Religious morality, on the other hand, is tied to the idea of stroking the ego of a god, which the religious tend to defend by asserting that such stroking occasionally produces a good effect on humanity.  (See the ridiculous defense of the Catholic Church in the face of the pedophilia scandal by defending their history of charity to the poor, as if it somehow softens the damage to the lives of countless children.)

I'm not going to make the same assertion that many of my fellow atheists make, that religiously-based morality is somehow worse than a humanist morality because it is based on fear.  While I think this argument holds some water, I know a number of religious people with a sincere desire to do good for all people, and fear doesn't prompt them to behave badly just to please their God.  But I can also turn the tables and point to religious people — church leaders, even — whose moral code can best be described as compromised, so it would stand to reason that while fear-based morality doesn't automatically make someone bad, it certainly does not automatically make someone good, either.

I guess my central point is that religion and morality seem to be two completely separate things.  There are religious people whose morals are above reproach, and there are religious people whose religious belief turns them into monsters.  There are atheists who are wonderful people with an unshakable ethical code, and there are atheists who are terrible people.  Religious belief can influence morality, but we are all ultimately responsible for our own actions. 

So as an atheist, it is my responsibility to choose my own path in life.  I have personally chosen a moral and ethical code that I think does the least damage and the most good for everyone, and I think I can live with that.