What is Morality?

[CaptainFritz28]

The "moral code" of a very small minority of people who have chosen to breach some of society's most basic conventions does not need to be respected. So we put them in jail.

So when slavery abolitionists were a minority, was slavery moral?

The Bible said slavery was moral, did it not?

If you are referring to the verses JECE mentioned, no.
The Bible also states in Matthew 5:44 "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
Does this condone the persecution of Christians? No. What it does is tell Christians what ought to be done if such an evil is perpetrated against you. Likewise, these verses do not say "slavery is good" but rather "if you are a slave, here's what you should do when evil is perpetrated against you."
Notably, JECE's source (an interesting one, to be sure) fails to include any context.
Colossians 4:1
"Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." (this is talking about bondservants, which are laborers that are working to pay off a debt, but it can be cross-applied)
Ephesians 6:5-9
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
Exodus 21:16
"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."
Deuteronomy 23:15-16
"You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him."

I don't know how much clearer it gets. The transatlantic slave trade was entirely an immoral institution.
The selling of oneself into slavery to pay a debt is a different matter. It is a choice of the individual to do so, but even then their master is commanded to deal well with them, not threatening or harming them. This is what the Bible refers to when it mentions bondservants or slaves.
Again, no interpretation needed. Just read.

[Jamiet99uk]

This is the hubris that bothers me. Your interpretation of the Bible is right apparently, but how am I to know that? Why isn't this Old Testament advice right? Who are you to get the final say on what is or isn't "biblical"?

Uh oh, we have another contender. Very good point, and the thing is, you are making the same point the captain made before, but using it against him.

This is a great thread.

Difference is, my point is that Atheism gives no standard to tell who is right. I'm claiming that reading the Bible is the standard to resolve any conflicts of moral opinion. That's why Atheism fails and Christianity does not. Christianity gives a solution for differing morals, but Atheism leaves it to each to discern their own morality, and gives no guidance where there is conflict.

This continues to be an irrelevant comparison.

[Jamiet99uk]

So what would you say to someone who legitimately believes murder is morally right? They are a human, just as you. They are capable of empathy, just as you. They do not want to be murdered, just as you. But they disagree with you. Tell me, what makes you any more morally correct than someone who believes that?

I have never met such a person.

Find me one and I will debate it with them.

How about, say, school shooters, certain Islamic groups, assassins, revolutionaries, the Nazis, extremist Communists, the Vikings, gang members, or any other murderer at all?

Answer the question or I'll assume you don't have an answer and that you concede this.

Okay let's take the example of school shooters. Generally they are mentally ill and harbour violent fantasies often borne out of sexual frustration. They do not necessarily belive what they are doing is moral; they choose to do it anyway, expecting to commit suicide or be killed in the process. Often they display the manifest lack of empathy of a psychopath. So its not like they have a rational morality you can debate sensibly. A number of them have also harboured religious fantasies believing that God has given them the power of judgement over others, so in some cases their religious belief in God is a contributing factor.

I do not think it is particularly relevant to discuss Viking morality as they lived around 1,000 years ago when human society was entirely different than it is today, and where war between human tribes was still a constant.

Gang members are criminals; I am sure that some of them know what they are doing is morally wrong. They are driven by greed, in some cases by poverty and desperation, or by other factors alienating them from normal society.

Extreme religious groups are driven by a viewpoint that says their god has declared them to be superior, and to have the right to kill in their God's name. In this case, religion is the problem.

Finally to discuss the morality of the Nazis would take more pages than I have space for here, fascinating though the topic is.

[CaptainFritz28]

Uh oh, we have another contender. Very good point, and the thing is, you are making the same point the captain made before, but using it against him.

This is a great thread.

Difference is, my point is that Atheism gives no standard to tell who is right. I'm claiming that reading the Bible is the standard to resolve any conflicts of moral opinion. That's why Atheism fails and Christianity does not. Christianity gives a solution for differing morals, but Atheism leaves it to each to discern their own morality, and gives no guidance where there is conflict.

This continues to be an irrelevant comparison.

I'll take that as a concession if you refuse to debate my main points.

[CaptainFritz28]

I have never met such a person.

Find me one and I will debate it with them.

How about, say, school shooters, certain Islamic groups, assassins, revolutionaries, the Nazis, extremist Communists, the Vikings, gang members, or any other murderer at all?

Answer the question or I'll assume you don't have an answer and that you concede this.

Okay let's take the example of school shooters. Generally they are mentally ill and harbour violent fantasies often borne out of sexual frustration. They do not necessarily belive what they are doing is moral; they choose to do it anyway, expecting to commit suicide or be killed in the process. Often they display the manifest lack of empathy of a psychopath. So its not like they have a rational morality you can debate sensibly. A number of them have also harboured religious fantasies believing that God has given them the power of judgement over others, so in some cases their religious belief in God is a contributing factor.

I do not think it is particularly relevant to discuss Viking morality as they lived around 1,000 years ago when human society was entirely different than it is today, and where war between human tribes was still a constant.

Gang members are criminals; I am sure that some of them know what they are doing is morally wrong. They are driven by greed, in some cases by poverty and desperation, or by other factors alienating them from normal society.

Extreme religious groups are driven by a viewpoint that says their god has declared them to be superior, and to have the right to kill in their God's name. In this case, religion is the problem.

Finally to discuss the morality of the Nazis would take more pages than I have space for here, fascinating though the topic is.

Great! You have explained how under your moral framework they are wrong.
Under their moral framework, you are wrong (most of them anyways; as you said, there are some who know that murder is evil).

What you have not done is explain why your moral framework is any better than their moral framework. Why are empathy and altruism the standards of morality? What makes your morals inherently good and theirs inherently bad?

For example, the Muslims mentioned believe that their religion tells them to kill Jews and Christians. That is borne out of a wish to serve their god. Now then, what makes their wish to serve their god, imaginary though he be, any less morally good than your drive of empathy? What inherently makes your morals better than theirs?

Or for the Nazis, their actions were driven out of the belief that they were superior to all others and thus their idea of morality was correct. What makes your belief that your idea of moralityis correct any different?

Or for gang members, they believe that murdering is less evil than staying poor, which I presume you disagree with. What makes that wrong, and you right?


To sum it all up (don't worry about addressing each example, answering this will suffice to respond to them all), if your moral view that murder is wrong is based in empathy and altruism, what makes empathy and altruism morally good, or any better than what others say are morally good, which may be in conflict with empathy and altruism?

[Jamiet99uk]

Difference is, my point is that Atheism gives no standard to tell who is right. I'm claiming that reading the Bible is the standard to resolve any conflicts of moral opinion. That's why Atheism fails and Christianity does not. Christianity gives a solution for differing morals, but Atheism leaves it to each to discern their own morality, and gives no guidance where there is conflict.

This continues to be an irrelevant comparison.

I'll take that as a concession if you refuse to debate my main points.

No, my position is that you are making an invalid comparison. You may compare atheism to cheese and conclude that atheism is a poor source of dietary calcium, but so what?

[Jamiet99uk]

How about, say, school shooters, certain Islamic groups, assassins, revolutionaries, the Nazis, extremist Communists, the Vikings, gang members, or any other murderer at all?

Answer the question or I'll assume you don't have an answer and that you concede this.

Okay let's take the example of school shooters. Generally they are mentally ill and harbour violent fantasies often borne out of sexual frustration. They do not necessarily belive what they are doing is moral; they choose to do it anyway, expecting to commit suicide or be killed in the process. Often they display the manifest lack of empathy of a psychopath. So its not like they have a rational morality you can debate sensibly. A number of them have also harboured religious fantasies believing that God has given them the power of judgement over others, so in some cases their religious belief in God is a contributing factor.

I do not think it is particularly relevant to discuss Viking morality as they lived around 1,000 years ago when human society was entirely different than it is today, and where war between human tribes was still a constant.

Gang members are criminals; I am sure that some of them know what they are doing is morally wrong. They are driven by greed, in some cases by poverty and desperation, or by other factors alienating them from normal society.

Extreme religious groups are driven by a viewpoint that says their god has declared them to be superior, and to have the right to kill in their God's name. In this case, religion is the problem.

Finally to discuss the morality of the Nazis would take more pages than I have space for here, fascinating though the topic is.

Great! You have explained how under your moral framework they are wrong.
Under their moral framework, you are wrong (most of them anyways; as you said, there are some who know that murder is evil).

What you have not done is explain why your moral framework is any better than their moral framework. Why are empathy and altruism the standards of morality? What makes your morals inherently good and theirs inherently bad?

For example, the Muslims mentioned believe that their religion tells them to kill Jews and Christians. That is borne out of a wish to serve their god. Now then, what makes their wish to serve their god, imaginary though he be, any less morally good than your drive of empathy? What inherently makes your morals better than theirs?

Or for the Nazis, their actions were driven out of the belief that they were superior to all others and thus their idea of morality was correct. What makes your belief that your idea of moralityis correct any different?

Or for gang members, they believe that murdering is less evil than staying poor, which I presume you disagree with. What makes that wrong, and you right?


To sum it all up (don't worry about addressing each example, answering this will suffice to respond to them all), if your moral view that murder is wrong is based in empathy and altruism, what makes empathy and altruism morally good, or any better than what others say are morally good, which may be in conflict with empathy and altruism?

I have explained my moral framework to you. My moral framework tells me that empathy and altruism are good yard-sticks for behaviour because they are concerned with reducing or limiting harm and suffering, and promoting collective happiness in society.

It is the only moral framework that I can use as a frame of reference. It's the only one I've got and it will have to do.

I cannot use your moral framework as a frame of reference for my own mortality because I cannot believe in God. Beyond that, the Bible is internally inconsistent and endorses practices such as slavery which, in my view, are wrong.

In many cases, my naturally, rationally arrived at, humanistic morality accords with Chrstian teachings in any case. Jesus promoted altruism and empathy in many of his reported words and deeds, did he not?

[CaptainFritz28]

Okay let's take the example of school shooters. Generally they are mentally ill and harbour violent fantasies often borne out of sexual frustration. They do not necessarily belive what they are doing is moral; they choose to do it anyway, expecting to commit suicide or be killed in the process. Often they display the manifest lack of empathy of a psychopath. So its not like they have a rational morality you can debate sensibly. A number of them have also harboured religious fantasies believing that God has given them the power of judgement over others, so in some cases their religious belief in God is a contributing factor.

I do not think it is particularly relevant to discuss Viking morality as they lived around 1,000 years ago when human society was entirely different than it is today, and where war between human tribes was still a constant.

Gang members are criminals; I am sure that some of them know what they are doing is morally wrong. They are driven by greed, in some cases by poverty and desperation, or by other factors alienating them from normal society.

Extreme religious groups are driven by a viewpoint that says their god has declared them to be superior, and to have the right to kill in their God's name. In this case, religion is the problem.

Finally to discuss the morality of the Nazis would take more pages than I have space for here, fascinating though the topic is.

Great! You have explained how under your moral framework they are wrong.
Under their moral framework, you are wrong (most of them anyways; as you said, there are some who know that murder is evil).

What you have not done is explain why your moral framework is any better than their moral framework. Why are empathy and altruism the standards of morality? What makes your morals inherently good and theirs inherently bad?

For example, the Muslims mentioned believe that their religion tells them to kill Jews and Christians. That is borne out of a wish to serve their god. Now then, what makes their wish to serve their god, imaginary though he be, any less morally good than your drive of empathy? What inherently makes your morals better than theirs?

Or for the Nazis, their actions were driven out of the belief that they were superior to all others and thus their idea of morality was correct. What makes your belief that your idea of moralityis correct any different?

Or for gang members, they believe that murdering is less evil than staying poor, which I presume you disagree with. What makes that wrong, and you right?


To sum it all up (don't worry about addressing each example, answering this will suffice to respond to them all), if your moral view that murder is wrong is based in empathy and altruism, what makes empathy and altruism morally good, or any better than what others say are morally good, which may be in conflict with empathy and altruism?

I have explained my moral framework to you. My moral framework tells me that empathy and altruism are good yard-sticks for behaviour because they are concerned with reducing or limiting harm and suffering, and promoting collective happiness in society.

It is the only moral framework that I can use as a frame of reference. It's the only one I've got and it will have to do.

I cannot use your moral framework as a frame of reference for my own mortality because I cannot believe in God. Beyond that, the Bible is internally inconsistent and endorses practices such as slavery which, in my view, are wrong.

In many cases, my naturally, rationally arrived at, humanistic morality accords with Chrstian teachings in any case. Jesus promoted altruism and empathy in many of his reported words and deeds, did he not?

I'm not saying they are bad things. I'm just curious from where you derive your morality, ultimately.

To take it a step further, then, why is reducing harm in society and promoting happiness a good thing? What makes them intrinsically morally good?

[CaptainFritz28]

This continues to be an irrelevant comparison.

I'll take that as a concession if you refuse to debate my main points.

No, my position is that you are making an invalid comparison. You may compare atheism to cheese and conclude that atheism is a poor source of dietary calcium, but so what?

The comparison is between two worldviews. Those worldviews must be able to explain the origin, purpose, destination after death, and morality of humans. Otherwise, they do not explain the world we live in. Atheism claims (so far as I can tell) that we came from nothing, or else series of infinite universes or something. It claims that our purpose is nothing but a link in Evolutionary Biology. It claims that our destination is nothing after death. It cannot explain morality.

Whether it purports to provide a moral framework is unnecessary. Atheism alone fails as a worldview; something else must be brought in to explain morality.

[Johnny Big Horse]

I'll take that as a concession if you refuse to debate my main points.

No, my position is that you are making an invalid comparison. You may compare atheism to cheese and conclude that atheism is a poor source of dietary calcium, but so what?

The comparison is between two worldviews. Those worldviews must be able to explain the origin, purpose, destination after death, and morality of humans. Otherwise, they do not explain the world we live in. Atheism claims (so far as I can tell) that we came from nothing, or else series of infinite universes or something. It claims that our purpose is nothing but a link in Evolutionary Biology. It claims that our destination is nothing after death. It cannot explain morality.

Whether it purports to provide a moral framework is unnecessary. Atheism alone fails as a worldview; something else must be brought in to explain morality.

I rarely agree with atheists, but I think I may side with Jamie here. Couldn't one read Schweitzer and feel deeply that he is right? And base their lives on his mission? Schweitzer's morality was based on the tenant that life is sacred. Jamie seems to agree with that. It is a great working set of values. All decisions in life can stem from that.

I think it's possible to be a mystic, meaning, being someone who has had a spiritual experience and has touched God, and at the same time be an atheist. Buddha was one. When you have a mystical experience you try to explain it using your understanding of the world and within the context of the culture around you. There are a lot of people with a firm grounding in science and reason and who are repulsed by church history, hypocrisy and theological contradictions with reason.

Schweitzer was a mystic. Perhaps Jamie is too God is out there. We cannot fathom God. We use our own mental constructs to attempt to understand God. Atheism is one of them.

Jamie's message in many ways resembles that of Christ, so what I am saying is possible. I M not saying Jamie is the new Chest. No. Just possibly a mystic.

And to me, that makes him right. I don't think divine experience is rational. Two people can touch God and see the world differently and both be right.

[Jamiet99uk]

Schweitzer was a mystic. Perhaps Jamie is too. God is out there. We cannot fathom God. We use our own mental constructs to attempt to understand God. Atheism is one of them.

Jamie's message in many ways resembles that of Christ, so what I am saying is possible. I'm not saying Jamie is the new Christ. No. Just possibly a mystic.

And to me, that makes him right. I don't think divine experience is rational. Two people can touch God and see the world differently and both be right.

I'm not the Messiah, I'm a very naughty boy. But thanks for the vote of confidence in my character.

[Jamiet99uk]

No, my position is that you are making an invalid comparison. You may compare atheism to cheese and conclude that atheism is a poor source of dietary calcium, but so what?

The comparison is between two worldviews. Those worldviews must be able to explain the origin, purpose, destination after death, and morality of humans. Otherwise, they do not explain the world we live in. Atheism claims (so far as I can tell) that we came from nothing, or else series of infinite universes or something. It claims that our purpose is nothing but a link in Evolutionary Biology. It claims that our destination is nothing after death. It cannot explain morality.

This is interesting, let's pick this apart.

Worldviews must be able to explain the origin, purpose, destination after death, and morality of humans.

I purport that Atheism is not a worldview. You are trying to hold it to be one, and you are assessing it against the success criteria you ascribe to a 'worldview'. This is where we have a fundamental difference in what we are arguing about.

Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. That's all. Nothing more.

Secondly, to your definition of 'worldview' - why must humans have a purpose? What if they don't?

Atheism claims (so far as I can tell) that we came from nothing, or else series of infinite universes or something.

Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Atheism holds that humanity was not created by a god, or gods. That's all. There are a number of secular theories for the origins of humanity. These theories come from science, not Atheism.

It claims that our purpose is nothing but a link in Evolutionary Biology.

There are a number of modern theories of evolutionary biology. Again these theories come from science, not Atheism. In any case, evolutionary biology is about how our species came to its present state, not about whether humanity has a "purpose". The only thing Atheism has to say here is that humanity does not have a purpose defined by a deity, because deities aren't real.

Personally I don't believe humanity has any kind of higher purpose. We're just a bunch of particularly intelligent apes.

[Atheism] claims that our destination is nothing after death.

Well, it's more that Atheism doesn't believe in deities or any of the magical constructs that they imply. Being an Atheist would generally tend to imply that someone also does not believe in the existence of an afterlife or the need to fear divine punishment after death.

I fear death. My mortality is on my mind on a daily basis, because I'm fairly sure that when I die, that's it. I've got another 30 to 40 years on this planet, if I'm lucky, and then it's the end. Nada. Consciousness over, forever. Fade to black. It's frightening.

I try to make a positive out of it by seeking to put as much life and joy into my personal friendships and interactions as I possibly can, and to find joy and love and goodness in each day that passes. I never wish for it to be the weekend when it's only Wednesday - I'm not wishing my life away.

It cannot explain morality.

And nor does it seek to.

[Johnny Big Horse]

I take it back. Jamie maybe is not a mystic.

[Octavious]

I never wish for it to be the weekend when it's only Wednesday - I'm not wishing my life away.

You'll be telling us next that you always give 100% at work and you really love exercising outside in the rain because of the refreshing coolness on your skin

[Jamiet99uk]

I take it back. Jamie maybe is not a mystic.

I have ALL the secrets to life, the universe, and one weird trick to cleanse your gut, and it can be yours today!

Just send $50 to the address on this flyer!

[Jamiet99uk]

I never wish for it to be the weekend when it's only Wednesday - I'm not wishing my life away.

You'll be telling us next that you always give 100% at work and you really love exercising outside in the rain because of the refreshing coolness on your skin

Maybe you should find more fulfilling things to do with your Wednesdays.

[Octavious]

I consider myself pretty fulfilled, but to claim that you never have a Wednesday when you feel like giving it up as a bad job? When you've spent the entire morning arguing with IT, you can feel the first signs of the dreaded lurgi in the back of your throat, and the office supply of milk is well on the way in its attempted transition between being on the turn to fully fledged junket? And then you get an email reminding you about Thursday's cascade meeting in which everyone is expected to attend?

You never wish to make a little leap to the weekend? Never?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Matthew 3:43-44 (Jesus Himself speaking)
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

See? No interpretation needed.

You have an extremely narrow view of what "interpret" means.

You have already interpreted the Bible by choosing to highlight this one phrase instead of many others on the topic:

Exodus 21:24 - "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
Leviticus 24:19-20 - "Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth."
Deuteronomy 19:21 - "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
Psalms 137:8-9 - "O daughter Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
1 Samuel 15:3 - "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
2 Thessalonians 1:6 - "God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you."
Revelation 6:10 - "They called out in a loud voice, 'How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?'"
Luke 22:36 - "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'"

Likewise, your claim seems to be that "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" has only one possible interpretation and that it is comprehensive moral advice. But this is obviously untrue. Even if they agree on the centrality of Matthew 3:43-44, different Christian traditions and individual Christians will all give you a different answer if you ask them what "love" requires and how you should show "love" to your enemies.

Now even if you feel you can resolve these issues for all of Christendom with your superior literalist reading of the Bible, how does Matthew 5:43-44 actually solve any real moral quandies without a ton more subjective interpretation? I no doubt think that you have an answer to each of the moral issues I have listed below, but I want to get you to consider that *your* answer to these questions cannot simply be informed by a simple non-interpretive answer from the Bible because of the contradictions in the Bible's moral advice:

Self-Defense vs. Non-Violence: If an individual is threatened with violence, does the principle of loving and praying for enemies (Matthew 5:43-44) prohibit any form of self-defense? How does this reconcile with the instruction in Luke 22:36 to be prepared, even to the point of buying a sword?

Justice System and Punishment: How should a Christian approach the justice system? Should they advocate for retributive justice, echoing the "eye for eye" principle from Exodus 21:24, or should they push for a system that focuses more on rehabilitation and forgiveness, in line with Jesus' teachings in Matthew?

War and Military Action: In a situation where a nation must decide whether to engage in war or military action, which principle should guide the decision? Should they follow the path of peace and love for enemies, or is there a time when the more aggressive stances, as seen in passages like 1 Samuel 15:3, become necessary?

Dealing with Oppressive Regimes: How should one respond to oppressive governments or regimes? Is praying for them and showing love sufficient, or does justice require active opposition, possibly even to the point of violence, as suggested in some Old Testament passages?

Responding to Personal Betrayal or Harm: When someone faces personal betrayal or harm, how should they reconcile the command to love and forgive with the natural desire for justice or retribution? Does loving an enemy mean foregoing all forms of personal justice or accountability?

National and Personal Security: How should a Christian balance the need for national and personal security with the imperative to love and not to harm others? Where is the line between prudent self-protection and a violation of the principle of loving one’s enemies?

Forgiveness vs. Enabling Harm: When dealing with individuals who repeatedly cause harm, how does one balance the command to forgive with the need to prevent further harm? Does loving an enemy include allowing them to continue harmful behaviors unchecked?

[Jamiet99uk]

I consider myself pretty fulfilled, but to claim that you never have a Wednesday when you feel like giving it up as a bad job? When you've spent the entire morning arguing with IT, you can feel the first signs of the dreaded lurgi in the back of your throat, and the office supply of milk is well on the way in its attempted transition between being on the turn to fully fledged junket? And then you get an email reminding you about Thursday's cascade meeting in which everyone is expected to attend?

You never wish to make a little leap to the weekend? Never?

I sometimes feel like making a little leap to the evening when I can go home / stay at home but stop working / go to the pub.

I look forward to the weekend especially if I have social events planned with lovely friends, which is usually the case - but I find myself able to enjoy looking forward to that time and feeling the warmth of my friendships without wishing that several days of my life would pass in a flash, forever lost to me.

[CaptainFritz28]

No, my position is that you are making an invalid comparison. You may compare atheism to cheese and conclude that atheism is a poor source of dietary calcium, but so what?

The comparison is between two worldviews. Those worldviews must be able to explain the origin, purpose, destination after death, and morality of humans. Otherwise, they do not explain the world we live in. Atheism claims (so far as I can tell) that we came from nothing, or else series of infinite universes or something. It claims that our purpose is nothing but a link in Evolutionary Biology. It claims that our destination is nothing after death. It cannot explain morality.

This is interesting, let's pick this apart.

Worldviews must be able to explain the origin, purpose, destination after death, and morality of humans.

I purport that Atheism is not a worldview. You are trying to hold it to be one, and you are assessing it against the success criteria you ascribe to a 'worldview'. This is where we have a fundamental difference in what we are arguing about.

Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. That's all. Nothing more.

Secondly, to your definition of 'worldview' - why must humans have a purpose? What if they don't?

Atheism claims (so far as I can tell) that we came from nothing, or else series of infinite universes or something.

Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Atheism holds that humanity was not created by a god, or gods. That's all. There are a number of secular theories for the origins of humanity. These theories come from science, not Atheism.

It claims that our purpose is nothing but a link in Evolutionary Biology.

There are a number of modern theories of evolutionary biology. Again these theories come from science, not Atheism. In any case, evolutionary biology is about how our species came to its present state, not about whether humanity has a "purpose". The only thing Atheism has to say here is that humanity does not have a purpose defined by a deity, because deities aren't real.

Personally I don't believe humanity has any kind of higher purpose. We're just a bunch of particularly intelligent apes.

[Atheism] claims that our destination is nothing after death.

Well, it's more that Atheism doesn't believe in deities or any of the magical constructs that they imply. Being an Atheist would generally tend to imply that someone also does not believe in the existence of an afterlife or the need to fear divine punishment after death.

I fear death. My mortality is on my mind on a daily basis, because I'm fairly sure that when I die, that's it. I've got another 30 to 40 years on this planet, if I'm lucky, and then it's the end. Nada. Consciousness over, forever. Fade to black. It's frightening.

I try to make a positive out of it by seeking to put as much life and joy into my personal friendships and interactions as I possibly can, and to find joy and love and goodness in each day that passes. I never wish for it to be the weekend when it's only Wednesday - I'm not wishing my life away.

It cannot explain morality.

And nor does it seek to.

You claim Atheism is not a worldview - unlike ideology, I have made sure with this word that the definition matched my meaning beforehand, so I can pull the dictionary here.
Merriam-Webster - "Worldview"
"a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint"
The standpoint from which Atheism operates is that there is no God. That's all there is to it. What that implies for the rest of the worldview is rather interesting.
No explanation of origin - if a Big Bang, there is no explanation of what came before it, and if infinite universes then you run into the circular and special pleading fallacies, as with God, but unlike God with no basis of it, just pure conjecture.
No explanation of purpose - as you said yourself, it implies that there is no purpose, and thus doesn't try to explain at all why we exist.
No explanation of morality - we've gone over that enough, it doesn't claim to be a moral standard.
At least it has an explanation of destination - as you said, Atheism implies nothing exists after death. At least it has something here.

This post reveals a bit more of your worldview. I think a better way to define it would be based on "science" supplemented by Atheism.
Now then, this runs into a problem. Science is only science because of what we as humans observe. So, then, we have a worldview based on empirical data. But what makes data empirical? Well, if you can see, hear, taste, smell, or touch it, then it's empirical. If it can be observed with the senses. Science is science because it follows the laws of nature and can be observed. How do we know the laws of nature and what our observations are? Science. It is as circular as an idea of God, but it explains less, and is less consistent because it is made by humanity.