With a smirk, the atheist proclaims, “I don’t need a god to be good. What, are you such a bad person you need to be told not to murder? Need the threat of Hell not to rape? Would forgo all acts of charity without the carrot of heaven?”
This is an argument hard to answer, for it attacks presuppositions—oh dread, I’ve used a big word and I’m talking with atheists—which must be aired before the attack can be critiqued. It is, of course, an assault on the projection that a society, or an individual, which turns away from God cannot stay moral.
The projection itself I will neither contend with nor support; this presupposition is only germane as it provides the setting for the discussion, but I will not ignore that it is a weak argument. However, the atheist counterargument in the first paragraph is often trotted out as some sort of anti-God trump card without the issue ever having been raised.
“Why yes, since you asked, I’m a Christian.”
“I don’t need your God to tell me right from wrong.”
A sort of dumbness is my general response as I mull over what the hell is wrong with this person, and in general, I think they have the idea backwards. It is not the belief in God which leads me to morality, but the observance of morality which leads to the conclusion of God.
To the point, if we observe the world, more specifically man, and observe an absolute morality which no man can avoid, which I think we do, then this leads us down an interesting trail of thought; that is it will, if we are willing and bold enough to follow it all the way down.
Morality must herein be described: it is discrimination, judgement between sets, which posits a right and wrong, and it is an eternal ideal transcending time and space. It is, in the long run, God.
So, this atheist assertion really boils down to, “I don’t need God, I have God.” Or to put it another way, it is as a man held aloft in a giant’s palm proclaiming the height he reached has nothing to do with any giant, only the hand bearing him up.
Of course, I’ve only brushed the surface of the issue here, and not, for example, touched upon a defense of absolute morality.
Tale Told 
The morality argument for a creator still doesn’t explain why we should respect or worship said creator.
We don’t know that there is one or not, but even if there is, it should make no difference to how we act or think or live our lives.
LikeLike
Hello Amanda,
In general, my response goes like this: One can chose either side. If you accept meaning, then that will logically lead to ultimate meaning, God himself, and it is in following this meaning (as Christ puts it, He is the way) that life should be led.
(I tried to go into more detail in my post, My Rambling Response, which can be read here: https://taletold.wordpress.com/2018/08/16/my-rambling-response/)
If you prefer a better writer and thinker than myself, consider this quote from C. S. Lewis:
If Christianity should happen to be true, then it is quite impossible that those who know this truth and those who don’t should be equally well equipped for leading a good life. Knowledge of the facts must make a difference to one’s actions. Suppose you found a man on the point of starvation and wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and as a result your man would die.
All that aside, God loves you, and that is the most important thing to know. Take or leave that love, either way it will make all the difference in your life.
LikeLike
Being equipped for a good life has nothing to do with practicing a religion or accepting spiritual theories as facts.
A Muslim could say everything you just said regarding Islam and according to your logic you couldn’t disagree with them, because in the end you both are just arguing blind faith claims.
LikeLike
Sounds like your presupposing that since we have morality, that we have an ultimate “law giver”, on the other hand, I believe human’s learned morality through trial and error.
LikeLike
I really like the Giant analogy. Amen.
LikeLiked by 1 person