On Moral Authorities

[theologian]

The problem here is getting theists to define exactly what they mean by morality in the first place. Even this guy who admits he'll roll over on anything God says is still trying to insist that it must also be what's best for wellbeing. The problem is that when you put absolute trust in an authority, you have no standard by which to check what they are doing. If they in fact don't have our best interests at heart, we'll never realise.

This is already a false dichotomy, for the case can be being both authoritative and knowledgeable, as that should be the more in the case of God Whom is all knowing and the Creator.

I don't give a monkey spit what God does and doesn't consider "moral". He has to explain why, like everyone else. If he tells me to go murder and rape a load of people, I'm not going to do it just because he says so. And he has indeed said so in the past, according to the bible.

One mistake here is to bring down God by treating Him like humans.

So God gives us a brain, then wants us to turn it off and blindly follow what he tells us to do? That's just really stupid. He may as well have made robots. Oh wait, he wouldn't get to torture anyone then. And that would be a terrible shame.

That case on the other hand fails to consider the knowledge of good and evil through natural law, which the natural human faculty of reason must be used.

I think atheist here will do better destroying theists' arguments by considering all that which must be considered. Otherwise, it's just either missing the point or a straw man. However, if they consider what must be considered, they may finally see the rationality of theistic position, the irrationality of atheism and finally cease to be an atheist. Hence, considering what must be considered is a must.