Can Atheists be Moral?

The short answer to this question is, "it depends on what you mean by moral and morality."

If by moral you mean, "adhering to virtue in the sense of objective good and evil" then no, they can't.  They don't believe in objective good and evil, so that sense of morality is a non-starter.  Atheists, in refusing any authority other than the convention of man, don't believe in objective right or wrong, or good and evil, so that definition of morality simply can not apply to someone who doesn't accept the premise.

If by morality, you mean, "following the laws of the land and practicing ethical behavior as defined by their context" then sure, atheists can obey the traffic laws and show up to work on time just like anybody else.

The problem is that the word is used in both senses, which causes confusion and people on each side of the definition argue without regard to the multiple and vastly different uses of the word.

Example:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/01/07/sarah-palin-secular-atheists-secular-theists-cant-be-moral.htm

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Austin Cline take issue with Sarah Palin's stance that, "morality itself cannot be sustained without the support of religious beliefs."  But what they are disagreeing about ultimately, is the nature of good and evil and the ultimate definition of morality.

Neither of them accepts Palin's definition of morality as given by God and not simply derived by the thoughts of people and legal systems of government.  My point is that if they don't accept morality as ultimately extra-natural in cause, then of course they won't be "moral" according to that definition.  What they are doing is using "moral" in a different way, and saying, "look - we're moral and you're wrong to say that we aren't."

But changing the definition changes the whole nature of the argument and claim.

The behavior actually seen or observed from both perspectives can overlap, but ultimately the disagreement is in the nature of good and evil and their connection with morality, and how this is defined.  Unfortunately, the standard dictionary definitions are of little help:

http://www.dictionary.net/morality

We still have the problem of what makes right "right" and what makes wrong "wrong" and who ultimately decides this.  I think Dosteovsky makes a strong point in The Brothers Karamazov when he says, "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."

If life simply ends at the grave, then what difference does it make if you live as monster or a saint?  The answer to that is "very little."  Sure Stalin killed millions, but they would have died eventually anyway.  Morality has had a religious underpinning for thousands of years, if you take that underpinning away, then it becomes necessary to answer the question, "why be moral at all?"

It isn't that the question can't be answered without a religious context, but it certainly becomes more problematic, in that Bob's definition of morality has no more weight than Steve's does, and they might disagree.

Austin says, "Saying that you can't be moral without being religious is no less bigoted than saying that a person can't be moral without believing in Jesus."

It isn't bigoted to disagree about the nature of good and evil.  But then, Austin is really quick to pull the bigot card, without actually addressing the nuance of the actual issue at hand.  Anyone who disagrees with him is a "bigot", as he regularly diplays in comment responses.  Which ironically, is extremely bigoted behavior, but nevermind.

To say that someone can't be moral according to Palin's definition of moral without being religious is simply being accurate, not bigoted.

One other thing, the Austin Cline article, which is arguing for a strict separation of church and state, with no mention or influence from private life into public political life, actually dares to mention Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.  This address is etched into stone at the Lincoln Memorial, and it should be.  I simply cannot believe that someone would reference or attempt to quote from this particular speech in support of not mentioning God, or anything related to God in public political discourse.  It is beyond idiotic.  Link to Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address and the full text of that speech is below. 

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Abraham Lincoln seems to draw a connection between theism and morality.

I think if you want to actually argue this point, you should take him on, in addition to Palin and see what happens.  It's easy to criticize someone who is popular this week, and whom much of the media hates, it is slilghtly harder to criticize someone who is widely acknowledged as the best President ever.