Why did God murder children for making fun of a bald guy?

[orangebox21]

Even if those that say evolution is responsible for morality are committing reification, which they are not, you're simply replacing it with your own and trying to cover it up with the bare assertion that morality cannot exist without god.

Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification)
"In philosophical terminology, abstraction is the thought process wherein ideas[2] are distanced from objects." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction)

An abstraction is produced from a thought process, an abstraction does not produce a thought process.

"When human-like qualities are attributed as well, it is a special case of reification,[dubious – discuss] known as pathetic fallacy (or anthropomorphic fallacy).
Ex: 'Nature provides empathy that we may have insight into the mind of others.'"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy))

Giving human traits (like rational thought processes) to processes like natural selection or speciation or a chemical equation is a fallacy of reification.

But you just said that god's morality doesn't determine ours, but that reality does, and that god's commandments are based on the positive effects they would have in reality.

You're not going to be able to play both sides of this game, so I'll ask you again, just to be sure: are god's commandments moral because god says them, or are they moral because of an underlying effect in reality that god has simply taken notice of and used to good effect in his commandments?

I'll answer by restating what I initially wrote: God gave us His commandments that have a positive effect in reality. You have my proposed cause and effect backwards here. You're proposing that God 'took notice of the good effect' and then produced the commandment. I'm proposing God made the commandment (the cause), and we observe the effect. You're asking me an either-or question that can be answered a third way.

Reality, as I've mentioned numerous times before. We can measure the objective effects of actions and determine their moral worth based upon their positive or negative effects on living things and the environment.

... since you've just said that these moral commandments have effects in reality, and those effects must obviously be positive, then what use is god in commanding them? Surely one would be able to reason out the merit of those effects sans divine commandment, and implement them based solely on the fact that they are good for people in general?

You take for granted that we can already 'reason right from wrong'. You would have to presuppose morality to be able to 'reason out the merit...' Presupposing morality as proof for morality is begging the question, your simply assuming the very thing you're trying to prove (we observe morality in reality, we can measure morality in reality, therefore reality gives us morality; it's circular). Where did we gain the knowledge that right exists and wrong exists and where did we get the knowledge to discern between the two?

My morality comes from my life experience, and the people around me. I'm a nice person because I was raised that way, and want to be a good person.

Can the origin of morality be other people? Viewed on a small scale, if I were to get my morality from you and you get your morality from Fred and Fred gets his from John and John gets his from me, then have we answered the question? It's somewhat circular. If things are passed from person to person we eventually run out of people. When explored this way there are two solutions: 1. Someone outside the human race gave it to the human race, or 2. Morality is ultimately determined by each individual person. If morality is ultimately determined by the individual then we would never have a valid reason to bring an accusation against anyone other than ourselves. Each of us would judge what is right in our own eyes.