…it kills the basis of morality.
Not much sleep last night, had a post-Superbowl discussion with my German (and presumably agnostic) friend.
My main argument, succinctly, goes:
Eliminating God changes “right and wrong” into “might makes right”.
The rest of this post demonstrates that contention.
With no Creator there are no creatures. Just animals. So look at Earth’s other mammals and show me the “right and wrong”.
I desire a female? I take her. Her reflexive resistance will fall between “token” and “absolute”. Easy conquests bring pleasure, but nothing compared to the satisfaction of vanquishing a formidable female after a fierce and challenging “courtship”. Genes almost worthy of my own!
She has a mate? I kill him. Offspring? I kill her previous spawn to ensure she lavishes care on my superior descendents.
It’s all perfectly natural. And yet it always ends with me fleeing a horde of human animals carrying pitchforks and torches.
What is wrong with you critters?
The German lady responded as intelligent people always do, by missing the point. She pointed out the problems of people going feral. The dangers to society and civilization. The evolutionary advantages to cooperation and compassion. She had no shortage of reasons why I should be civilized.
To which I say, “So what?”
Who cares? Oh, sure, most of you, you’re genetically predisposed. But what if I don’t give a rat’s ass about survival beyond my own? What is your stable society compared to filling my belly or spilling my seed as I desire?
Look around, you gelded primates. It’s called “nature”.
So if “right and wrong” are impossible in a Godless universe, how did the delusion arise? Via betas. The Tyranny of the Mediocre. Alphas take what they want because betas are helpless against them individually. Betas never liked it, but what are you gonna do?
Well…betas formed a union.
WTF?! Suddenly you couldn’t take anything away from one beta until you’d beaten them all up simultaneously. Thus began “morality”, launching the world of Wussy CryBabies and Never Cleaning Out the Gene Pool.
C’mon, atheists. Quit the “bio-ethicist” crap. You had your conclusions long before coming up with their reasons. You can’t accept God but won’t deny right and wrong. You won’t admit that “morality” is just a lie to salve the egos of the genetically marginal. But if there is no God then I am an animal and care for nothing but my pleasure and pain. As for you then instructing me as to proper behavior I say, from the bottom of my heart, “screw you”. I am your intellectual alpha, pathetic little betas, and I spit on your “shoulds”.
So, what have you got left? Hmm? What’s your must? Your demands are undesired and unnatural to me. So why must I do what you want?
Because might makes right. Right? Do as you say or deal with your pathetic loser union. And, painful as it is to admit, a hundred of you are mightier than me.
Physically, that is. Obviously not mentally.
Might makes right. So what is right? Whatever the mightiest animals want it to be.
In this Godless universe 7,000,000,000 animals have an developed an idea of “right and wrong”. Some come close to agreeing with others, but no two are identical.
And every single one is a lie.
Without God.
World's Only Rational Man 
Amen.
Some syllogisms for your enjoyment. Also, I take morals/morality to mean ‘what society thinks is right’, from the Latin mores, whereas ethics, from the Greek ethos, is an absolute standard of right and wrong
1.
Major premise: anything created by mankind can be altered by mankind.
Minor premise: there is no external source for standards of right and wrong.
Conclusion: the standards of right and wrong that mankind makes can be altered by man (and are therefore relative instead of absolute).
2.
Major premise: there is only morality, not ethics.
Minor premise: the size of ‘society’ is variable…I could think of the entire world, the country, the state, the city, or simply myself as ‘society’.
Conclusion: I can decide my own morality for myself.
Interestingly, I’ve used these arguments to argue for a belief in God. (“Do you believe in an absolute standard of right and wrong?” “Yes.” “Can such a thing be created by humans?” “Yes.” “Actually, no, and here’s why not….” “Hmmmm….” “So an absolute standard of right and wrong comes from outside of humanity, and we can call that source God.”) Now granted, it’s an argument from philosophical axioms, but I wanted to establish that ~God ==> ~Ethics and, equivalently, Ethics ==> God.
Very precise, very concise…very nice.
C.S. Lewis, of course, made these arguments much better than I ever have, and with much less vulgarity.
This is a topic I argue frequently. The salient point in my mind is that Atheists can only exist in a Sea of Christian society. In prior times they would be killed.
I also point out the pile of corpses left behind by Athiest Regimes such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. It IS in the best interest of mankind to embrace Christianity, or something like it.
Yes, if atheists wanted to denounce religious murderers for being pikers, I’d concede the point. In the name of godless beliefs, atheists murdered more people in the 20th Century than all religions have in recorded history.
When you take the time to write a more substantial post, you do not disappoint.
Linda
Thank you!
There is no doubt God is a positive. I’m glad I live in a Christian-based society where most believe in Him and most of those follow the Christian rules and even many non-believers are grounded in “doing right” by the exposure they received in their early years. And the founding fathers used him wisely; “…rights endowed by our Creator…” or something like that to say the rights did not come from man, thus man cannot take them away. The big question is, did man, thinking of a positive outcome, create the “idea of god” in order move mankind in some direction or did God create man. Either way, “killing Him” would be a bad thing.
Yes. I think some of those Founders disbelieved in a personal God, or were agnostics. Yet they agreed with putting the “God talk” in there, for the reasons you gave.