Of course they do.  Just because an Atheist doesn't have some book telling them what to do doesn't mean they're not human.  Wow, just gonna stop there, this rant warrants a blog.

I am an Atheist, and let me tell you, I have more morals than many "Christians" at my school.

I have started a club to help bring awareness to the poverty issue in many countries, especially those in many parts of Africa.

I don't drink, smoke, or do any form of illegal drug. I don't have sex, nor do I plan to before marriage.

I'm sorry, but nothing makes me more mad when I'm told that I have no morals because I'm an atheist. Religion would not change my ways.

I have made the choice to not believe in God because of all the horrible things I've seen in this world and all of the horrible things that have happened before my time. If you want to know more, feel free to send me a message, but I'm unlike most atheists and I'm not going to go post all over about how I don't believe in God, but if you want my reasoning, I will gladly tell you, I will not answer to rude questions or responses though.

But I do find many religous and non-religous people to be ignorant, especially about other religions and beliefs. I'm 16, but I bet I've studied several world religions. They include; Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Pagan/Wiccan, Taoism, and Roman and Greek mythology. Many atheist would go around and bash somebody's beliefs, but I'm not like that.

I am an Atheist, and I do have morals.

When we talk about "morals" are we talking about knowing right from wrong?  Treating people and animals kindly?  Following the rules of Mom and Dad?  Of the school?  Following our government's rules - being law-abiding citizens?  While I am a Christian and first got my "moral code" from my parents and my church and my Sunday School class, it wasn't too long before school started and lots of those same "morals" existed and were taught by teachers in the school, although it was a public school and could have just as well been run by atheists.  "Don't push other kids.  You might hurt them"  "Don't take other people's things."  "Clean up after yourself."  "Say you're sorry."  "Replace what you've broken/stolen/lost."  "Be respectful of teachers and parents and other adults."  "Be kind to each other."  "Treat animals and the earth with respect and kindness.  Take care of them."  These we all learn, whether we are Christians or not.  Are these moral codes taught, or are they written on all our hearts?  They DO need to be taught in schools.  Some children arrive not having a clue how to behave or act or follow any sort of rules.  Other children have already been taught the basics by their parents, and maybe even their churches, but maybe not.  Do any children ever figure all this out for themselves, without being taught?  Somebody, somewhere, taught "right from wrong", without it having anything to do with Christianity.

I think the fact that this question is even being asked is insulting. I'm offended.  To be quite frank, this question is based in ignorance.  If you're going to question the motives of people who don't believe in God, you should take the time to research a reference that isn't from God. I'm not saying that the bible's words should be completely disregarded, but I think the argument you've presented is a little one-sided.

For instance, did you know that ethical perspectives have been analyzed and defined?  The religious ethical perspective is only one of SEVEN widely recognized guiding principles. SO, for your own benefit, I thought I'd share the perspective of some one who isn't as pure as your every-day christian.

Economic Perspective – By far the simplest of perspectives.
People who use this ask themselves what will minimize costs and maximizeprofits.  Any action that works toward those ends is ethical. Conversely, any action that lowers profits and raises costs is unethical.

Legal Perspective – People who use this only care if an action is legal.  If the law allows for it, it’s ethically right.  If the law
doesn’t allow for a certain act, then doing so is unethical.

Utilitarian Perspective – People who use this perspective
are concerned with the question, “What action will do the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the least amount of time?”  If an action helps more people than it hurts, then it would be considered ethical.  If an action helps people, but a different action could help more, than it is unethical.

Universalist Perspective – People who use this perspective
are only concerned with the intentions behind a person’s actions.  If somebody meant well, and was trying to help, then their actions were ethical, even if those actions might otherwise be considered questionable or wrong.

Deontological Perspective – People who use this perspective
are concerned with the end results.  They might say “The ends justify the means.” By this attitude, any action, no matter how depraved, is ethical if it accomplishes a positive end-result.

Religious Perspective – People who use this govern
themselves by a set of standards of right and wrong that are defined by something outside of themselves.  This can be religious texts like the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran, or it can be
something that’s not religious at all, like scientific laws of nature.

Situational Perspective – This perspective is the most complex.  According to this perspective, the ethics of an action are determined by the aspects of the situation in which
it occurred.  Basically, this means that what is right and wrong depends on the circumstances.

So, do I believe that athiests have a basis for being moral? To put it simply, every human being has a reason for their actions, regardless of faith.  Christians aren't the only people with guide lines and rules that define their lives.  The rest of us aren't heartless monsters that simply put on a farce of morality.

Next time, be careful how you word your questions, and support your basis for those questions in more than just scripture. If you're dealing with a topic that exists outside of faith, you need to reference material that exists outside of faith.

If one kept reading on in Romans, one may find the answer to your question (quote copied and pasted from biblegateway.com):

"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For
it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but
it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed,
when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by
the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have
the law, since they show
that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their
consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now
even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."  (Romans 2:12-16)

Paul seems to be saying that, though the Gentiles do not have the Law as the Jews have it, they do possess it.  Whereas the Jews have it written down as sacred scripture, the Gentiles have it written on their hearts.

And they can choose to ignore it, just as we religious folk so often choose to ignore it.

@MyLifeInOz@xanga - I believe that everyone has an innate moral compass. 

First of all, the verse quoted is saying that all immoral people are denying the truth about God, not that all atheists are immoral people.  (i.e. "All A is B" does not mean that "All B is A", for those who like syllogisms.)

Second, there's an obvious difference between asking whether a person behaves morally and asking whether a person has a consistent philosophical basis for their morality.  A person can choose not to steal without ever thinking deeply through the reasons that stealing is wrong.

When we miss these distinctions, we spin our wheels and get nowhere.

I think it's evident that many atheists or nonbelievers are of course capable of behaving as morally as the next person--but by a moral standard that appears to be borrowed from theistic religion.

Daniel Dennett (himself an atheist) argues in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that if naturalistic evolution is true, then we have no basis at all for moral judgments.  If Dennet is correct, then atheists who behave morally may be very right to do so, but are inconsistent with their philosophy. I think he's on to something: How, exactly, would one get by pure reason from the premise "There is no Supreme Moral Law-Giver greater than humans" to the conclusion "All humans should live morally"?  At very least, the logic is a lot simpler if there's a God.

Anyhow, all this is essentially irrelevant to the real issue.  The idea taught in the Bible is that no one (especially not religious people!) is perfectly moral.  "We all stumble in many ways."  We've all broken whatever moral law we believe in, and thus we have no hope of depending on our moral virtue.  If moral behavior is the answer, we all flunk the test.  The problem is not that nobody believes in morality, but that nobody's moral enough by their own standards.  Where's the hope in that?

(Cue Epistle to the Romans... standing by....)

@la_faerie_joyeuse@xanga -
"What if I believe it's wrong to drink because that will make me unhappy?"

You are mistaking thinking that something is not good for you with a moral code. Self benefit is not morality.

"It's also what evolutionary biology says"

So you are saying that your personal morality is based on your DNA. All that profound philosophical lap dancing of Kohlberg's was well . . . it sounded good but you are just the product of genetics and external stimuli

@Theophilus166@xanga - Most atheists you know are in 4 (by your evaluation), many atheists I know are in 5 (by my evaluation).  We just proved absolutely nothing.

All people have a "moarl standard"...But from ALL people only SOME have a "moral standard" and a "religious moral standard"...I believe people who have no religion still have morals and beliefs, but Catholics (for example) have their own morals as well faith based morals...People are People...Let's be Friends

This question seems almost offensive in implying that without Christianity there can be no morals. You seem to be forgetting that the study of ethics in the classics (Greek and Roman) far predates Christianity and is not theologically based. Most would argue that ethics as a whole is a necessary element for society, and therefore morality itself would date back to the first civilization and far far predate Judaism. I suggest people here read the classics of ethics before assuming that Christianity or Judaism are prerequisites for being a moral person.

yes we do have morals. 
you know the normal ones. like the ones all the chirstians have. but being good to one another because its the right thing to do didn't make since so they said god told them to and now they have morals.
so yes.  morals are in check. 

i believe everybody can create their own morals.

after all, the morals of christianity were made by god, right?