Yes but if you believe in nothing, then you have nothing, which also means that you are nothing.
Where do you come up with this "belief in nothing" stuff, and why do you think it impacts morality?
You probably don't believe in Aslan the lion or Santa Clause, but I wouldn't accuse you of believing in nothing because of your A-Clausianism.
Some religions are not theistic. Many Buddhists, for example, do not incorporate any idea of divine personage into their religion, and who would accuse Buddhists of being immoral, much less "nothing?"
Because to be able to distinct right from wrong is a moral decision and if you believe in nothing and sit there and borrow from moral beliefs then that means that you are confused.
On the contrary. It is the religious that adopt or "borrow" moral rules. We atheists have a social conscience and develop our own,
internalized morality, which is generally more benign and socially appropriate than the traditional morality of the Christians -- which could be said to be more appropriate to the tribes of Bedouin goatherds who originated it.
Because you have no foundation that's stable enough to claim to have invented a moral decision. Atheist borrow morals to make up their own belief system in their own heads.
There is a universal morality that is generally agreed upon everywhere: fairness, kindness, the golden rule, &c. Everyone agrees that theft, murder, &c is generally wrong. But when you base your morality on a formalized, prescriptive, inflexible set of rules it becomes easy to excuse such excesses as slavery, war and oppression.
Perhaps this is why we see an
inverse relationship between crime and religiosity here In the US.
Rather than the atheists being morally adrift, I would say it was more the religious who are the moral cripples. Perhaps when you grow up with an imposed set of moral crutches there is no incentive to develop a strong, internalized moral skeleton.
