How do we do it?

Here's an interesting thread at Pharyngula (yeah, me linking to Pharyngula - that will sure bump up their numbers, huh?) where a poster, finding his increased knowledge of evolution threatening his religious faith, asks a couple of apparently serious questions:

1. I truly don't mean this to be insulting, so please don't take it that way, but what is your motivation to live a moral, upstanding life without the guidance of the rules of God and the Bible? I know you guys do this, but I'm not sure I understand how it works without concrete guidance.
   
2. For those of you who were once Christians (I'm guessing there are some), how did you reconcile your atheism/agnosticism with your relationship with your Christian family/friends? How do you tell them? Do you still go to church for the fellowship but just don't pray/participate? Did you lose friends/family in your process of change?

There are hundreds of great replies to this, including one by PZ Myers himself. Here are just a few samples:

1) I would ask why you need god to be a "moral person". The god of the Judeo-Christian bible isn't upstanding and moral at all and neither are his rules. Do you pick and choose which rules you follow? Stoned any adulterers lately? No? Well then, my friend, you're a half-assed Christian.
As far as I can tell, you aren't supposed to pick and choose what rules are the rules that you follow. Why bother practicing a faith if you don't agree with what is taught?
The idea of getting something (eternal paradise) for being good is incredibly immature. Really, it's no different from being good so you get presents from Santa on Xmas.
My morality is based on respect for people-- recognizing that we have a shared humanity and no one should suffer by my hand. Not because I'm going to get anything out of the deal, but because I know suffering and it sucks. Which probably explains why I'm a big ol' lefty, too.

The first question is easy. Why do you think it's okay to work on Sunday, eat shellfish, or wear clothing of mixed fabrics? Why haven't you given away all your wealth, as the new testament clearly says to?
The answer isn't "because that first list is from the old testament, and Jesus didn't *really* mean to give away all your wealth if you want to go to heaven." The answer is that you have your own morality and you simply pick the pieces of the bible that agree with it and ignore those that don't. Or you let your local priest do that. As an atheist I just skip the bit about finding biblical justification for my pre-existing beliefs.
As for the second question, I mostly just didn't. My family wasn't especially religious, but I just avoid discussing religion with those who do attend church. Some of my friends enjoy a good philosophical debate, and I'll discuss religion with them even if they're theists. Others I just don't discuss religion with.
There seems to be this idea that "new atheists" are terribly confrontational, but there's a big difference between being willing to discuss atheism (and making sure that religion doesn't get a strong hold on our schools or government) and preaching atheism at street corners. Atheism doesn't command people to "spread the lack-of-word" or anything like that.

2) I work with a student atheist group, and this is the big issue. Letting go of faith is not a free-fall for many. For many students, the rejection of their belief in god entails a rejection of their entire support system....with very real implications regarding getting help with student loans, means of transportation, etc. It can be a bold move, and in this regard being part of a community of people who have recently made the break seems to provide some comfort and alternative access to "family". Fortunately, this wasn't a problem for me. I was raised in a strongly Catholic household, but have never been a believer. However, my family is even more clannish than it is Catholic, and there is NO EXCOMMUNICATION. When my uncle came out of the closet, most members of my family found it easier to abandon the idea that homosexuality was a sin than to abandon my uncle. My atheism was greeted similary. I mean, they are all praying for me, but I feel no less a part of the fam.

I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, which means that my move away from religion was more traumatic than it is for most people. I don't tell this story to scare anyone--rather, I tell it to show that it can be done successfully, and that even though the cost may be high, it's still worth it. My parents haven't spoken to me much in the last 15 years, and not at all in the last 5. The same goes for one aunt and one uncle. But my sister and I are still tight, and I've become close with much of the rest of my extended family, cousins and aunts and uncles I'd largely lost touch with, and I'd lost touch with them in part because they weren't Witnesses and so my parents didn't have much to do with them.
The first steps out of a fundamentalist world are the most terrifying, because you're leaving a place where you feel completely connected, where you feel harmonious and protected and safe, and you're entering a world that doesn't offer that feeling. The problem is that the feeling of harmoniousness is a lie--you're only in harmony as long as you agree with every dicta, with every interpretation of the group. Step outside that realm, ask questions, and you'll be cut out of it. Fear of being cast out keeps people in line.
The world outside that community is frightening, or it can be, but it's also rewarding in ways that beggar description. Not to get all motivational speaker on you, but you don't grow without challenge, and you won't be challenged in that other environment. You will be challenged in a world which forces you to actually think out why you act in particular ways, that forces you to defend your beliefs rather than simply falling back on truisms. I've been out for 15 years and I'm still sweeping out the cobwebs, and it's gotten to be fun. Take the step. It's worth the cost.

You know that slavery is wrong. That rape is wrong. The bible doesn't say that. Morality comes from empathy as Myers says. Live in accordance with what you value and you will be fine. You know what you value, you don't need religion to know what is right or wrong. And the close questions are never answered by religion anyway.
I am an undercover atheist. My husband is Hindu and is very religious. He thinks it is shameful to not believe in God/the Absolute and thinks that it is a personal failing to not have faith. I keep my mouth shut. He thinks any questioning on my part is intellectualizing and disrepectful. I'd get a divorce but I can't afford it. We are retired and live on a limited income.
I am living inconsistent with my values. It probably will shorten my life. It certainly doesn't help me sleep at night. 

Why be good? It's very simple; I love my children, and I want the best possible world for them. I also love my friends and neighbors, and their children, and (thanks to the infrastructure of the modern world) people across the globe. I want the best possible world for them. No gods required; indeed, the divisiveness of religions is antithetical to my goal of a best possible world.
I do not hide my atheism from my family or friends, but it rarely causes conflict. It has, on occasion, but I am only confrontational about it when someone else makes an indefensible comment first. I have lost the friendship of one couple--oddly enough, not because I became an atheist, but rather because they became born-agains and stopped coming by.

Morality comes from the same place: our desire to participate in society. I wish to benefit from having people around me, helping me out. That means I help them out. Mutual aid will only come from those that trust me, and so I remain as true to them as I can. I do not betray them, so they can trust me, and help me. They do not betray me, so I can trust them, and help them.
That is the foundation of morality.
I would argue that anything that does not come from that foundation is not morality, but law. For instance, we don't kill other people not because there is a law against it, but because it would harm our standing in society. However, the prohibition of same-sex marriage is about law, not morality. Same-sex marriage would not be a betrayal of trust of other members of society. It causes no harm to members of society. Therefore, there's nothing immoral about it.
You can further say, like several here have, that we don't want people to harm us, and so we don't harm them, or that we have empathy, but really all that is just an emotional way to say the same thing: we don't want to betray others, because we like society. We like the things society gives us: stability, comfort, safety, and all the good things we enjoy today.
This is how you can derive morality. It's really quite easy. You can judge an action based on whether or not it betrays trust. (Or, you can just trust your emotions -- they'll usually steer you right.)
Now, when you start assuming morality can only be given, you have to accept that you have no method of judging morality at all. You have to accept the guidelines really are moral. Or, you accept they are moral by fiat, not by any intrinsic rightness. Hell, only three of the Ten Commandments really have any relevance to . . . well, anything. The rest are either orders to love God in one way or another, or the generally good advice of not desiring things you can't have.

This is only a small fraction of the many good answers there. It really is an interesting thread, especially if you're facing a similar situation yourself. I highly recommend it.

One last comment, which I'll post below the fold:

A quick point on the "Golden Rule:" many theists will say that we atheists are merely borrowing language from Christianity when we talk in terms of morality, and abiding by the Golden Rule is just one more instance of this. They'll tell you Jesus said it, and there's no reason to follow it if you're not also a follower of Jesus.
Call bullshit on them. Confucius was probably the first to give a version of the Golden Rule, in a negative form (the "Silver Rule"): "Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you." Though not perfect, it is probably a better formulation than Jesus's, since it avoids the obvious problem with masochism. And Confucius said this 500 years before Jesus.
Socrates also had a version of the Golden Rule, as well as a formulation of "turn the other cheek," since in his discourse on Justice he stated plainly that it is never just to harm another, even if s/he has harmed you.
There really isn't anything unique about Christianity, especially on the ethical front. It's just the system most of us are most familiar with.

There's an old novel - I thought it was by John Ball, but I can't find it and can't remember the title - about this very subject. The main character is an Anglican minister, if I remember correctly, who tries to get every religious group in the world together to agree on... whatever they can find in common. (In the process, he falls in love with a Buddhist girl.)

The result of his effort, eventually, is that pretty much everyone - and that definitely includes secular groups - decide they can agree on the basic idea stated in Golden Rule and similar philosophies (as the above poster notes, there are a number of different versions which mean the same basic thing).

It's a pleasant, optimistic little novel, as I recall, kind of like something Nevil Shute would have written. But it's not his either, I don't think. It's not particularly realistic, but it's just... nice. Does this book sound familiar? Can anyone help me out here with the title and author?

At any rate, as I say, I thought this was a great thread. Well, there's a reason why Pharyngula is so popular. Normally, I don't read the comments, because there are just too many of them (certainly not a problem I have!). And indeed, I didn't make it through all the comments on this post, either - not even close.

But when I do read comments at Pharyngula, I'm always hugely impressed at the quality of the thinking and, often enough, the compassion. Oh, sure, they can be like a school of piranhas when someone deserves it, and not every comment is so admirable, but in general, the comments - the commenters - are very impressive.

They're not as impressive as the handful of people who read this blog, of course, but hey, they're still pretty good.  :)