I'm so sorry for your loss friend. I don't know what to say but, that was 'just a random act of the universe.' I hope you feel better.

Not sure if you are trying to troll me but you misunderstand John Rawls then if you think that is the proper response.

My first question is what caused the car crash? For it to be "just a random act of the universe," then it has to be random.

If it was caused by a drunk driver or a texting driver, then that is not random. From the "original position," you would not want to drive or text and drive since you could the one facing the loss of family. Furthermore, from the "original position," I would want laws that punish such irresponsible behavior and to promote better driving.

Therefore, I think that example misses the point entirely. Even if I were atheist, I would comfort my friend and share his outrage for the irresponsible driving that caused the loss of his family. You do not need religion for that.

There's a multitude of situations where human behavior doesn't look like it's the cause of evil, but it turns out that it is.

Once again, I think you are missing the point. What is causing the starvation? If it is due to a war, then from the "original position," you would want to propose such warmongering is limited and punished.

Why do you think that atheists would be confused about the causes of evil? An earthquake is not evil, but starvation after an earthquake due to the government spend all its emergency funds on a gold statute is evil. Not sure why you find confusing about assigning blame.

What happens when two groups of people disagree with what's moral? How is morality decided then?

Probably the same way you deal with people who disagree with your morality. Some Muslims believe that drawing pictures of Muhammad is sacrilegious and immoral. I am sure you disagree with them. So how do you decide who is right?