Thank God.

…nor a general realization that morder is a bad thing.

Tell it to Frodo, big boy.

I would disagree since that renders the word entirely meaningless except as a synonym for “personal opinion” or “prejudice”. It seems to me that what is and isnt moral is basically developed by a society in a sort of collective unconscious sort of way. Anthropologists have recorded cultures that have and havent had religious structures, that have and havent had centralized ruling authorities, and have observed that these cultures and tribes, even when cut off completely from one another, end up possessing fundamentally the same sort of moral code, centering on core tenets of honesty and fairness.

Its a shame that Novak decided to rag on Dawkins for the crime of “not knowing his scripture” because its on that point specifically where “God Delusion” becomes, frankly, a fan-fucking-tastic read for his sociological analysis of religion and societies, and how while it is not a necessary factor for developing morality, particulary toward an in-group, it is basically requisite in forming hostility to the out-group. Moses is an all too perfect example of this, quite frankly. As God’s chosen messenger he comes down from Sinai with the tablets and tells his people “Thou Shall Not Kill. Totally. For Reals,” but then later, ordering his men to kill the Midionites, not just the men fighting against him but ordering the slaughter of the non-combatant women and children, its clear that this set of morals does not apply outside of the in-group. “Thou Shall Not Kill Other Jews, and Fuck Em All Else,” would be a more accurate phrasing of that commandment then.

Which brings me back to my initial point. Good deeds do not require belief in God, nor the development of moral codes, nor a desire to help your fellow man, nor a general realization that morder is a bad thing. Religion is not necessary to justify such good deeds, as they need no justification, being self-evidently positive. The only thing religion functionally does, therefore, is endorse, legitimize, and promote hostility and hatred. Faith and Belief in God can be lovely things. Religion is evil.

Hmmm. Not doing much for Mr. Novak’s premise, I gotta say.

Very dead. But the problem of course is still there: If morals are defined as obeying the will of an authority, then which authority do we pick? While the choice between, to go to logical extremes here, God and Satan may seem like an obvious one, even to non-believers, an important distinction is that neither one really allows you to chose the other, since they both punish for dissent, taking choice out of it entirely. In this context its impossible to even choose to be moral, which makes the definition of morality even more self-defeating, forcing it to change to something like “Morality is submitting your will to a higher authority, and hoping its the right one, since you’re stuck with it,” which opens up its own set of problems with what right any religious denomination has to claim that its the right one.

Is of course the logical extension of that statement where the problems come in. If morality is diong what you’re told my someone in power over you, then the good christian is not only as moral as a soulless robot, but given that definition he’s also exactly as moral as a Nazi following hitler’s orders. Clearly they are not both equivalently moral, so the term needs to be redefined further, which is where the theism almost requires more vague terminology about such things as “God’s true will” and other such language and concepts to basically shut down the argument by claiming essentially that the answer is unknowable by heathens.

Shared ideas or beliefs which serve to justify the interests of dominant groups.

So….ideology=religion? That would hardly demonstrate atheism as the cause of atrocities. Actually, quite the opposite.

Correct, and frankly proper given the extraordinary nature of the claim. If I say theres a unicorn inside my skull but cannot prove it, the logical and empirical thing is to assume that there isn’t.

If there is no God, they then go on to say, then there is no ‘higher authority’, and man is the source of wisdom and direction.

Agreed, but we’re steal dealing with the hypothetical of God’s nonexistence, so the terminus of this line of reasoning comes to whether or not man can fill that causal gap left by God. The argument is that this is the case, and is too detailed to delve into properly here.

Without moral boundaries (I think Mr. Novak and I would agree) there is an inevitable slide towards totalitarianism.

You’ve made a bit of a leap here, so its best to make sure we’re defining terms, since it would easily be arguable that Totalitarian states have used some form of mandated religion in order to subjugate its people (Again, Hitler comes to mind, as do Spanish Inquisitors, etc.)
Secondly, you’re also assuming one of two things it seems. A- That atheists have no moral boundaries, or that if they do they are vastly inferior than religious ones by fault of being self-made, since morals are de facto religion-based. Or B- that you’re defining Morals such that they can only come from a person in authority to deliver them, such as a priest or rabbi or, further up the ladder, God himself. In the case of B, a series of morals are indistinguishable from laws, and saying then that they are absent in totalitarian states certainly have plenty of laws to go around is somewhat self-refuting, and leaves us with A, which requires that all atheists are inherently less moral than religious people. This brings us back to the problem of morality and what defines it and how it can be evaluated.

You never answered my question of having a “good christian” and a robot performing the same action and what distinguishes the one as moral if both actions are impelled to act by the will alone of a higher authority. If the determing factor is God, then how is it evaluated? People have committed wrongs, saying they were doing so in God’s name, so clearly personal opinion is not trustworthy in this. What other way is there to know?

Shared ideas or beliefs which serve to justify the interests of dominant groups.