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

[orangebox21]

What you're proposing is inherently contradictory, then. Let's be clear: you believe that god's moral commandments, if followed, would result in a world that is objectively better than one where they aren't, right?

Yes, but I would say, given human interpretation, the world is subjectively better not objectively better.

Given this, then those objectively beneficial effects can be observed without believing in a god.

Yes I agree (although again changing objectively to subjectively)

You seem to be saying that if I don't believe in god then the beneficial effects of his commandments would somehow be invisible to me,

No not at all, not belief in God, but rather existence. To reiterate: If morality is given by God's commands (cause) then we can observe the result (effect). If we remove God's commands (or His existence and thus His commands) then we would have to remove the result. If there is no cause then there is no effect. This is, and I agree with you, much different than belief in God. Belief in God is not the cause (His existence/command is) and so removing it would not remove the effect. You can certainly not believe in God and still observe the effects of His commands.

Besides, you're making a fundamental mistake with your answer to my second question anyway; the "cause" of the effects on the real world wouldn't be god, they would be adherence to his commandments, which are actions that don't suddenly become impossible the moment one becomes an atheist.

Without God's commands we would have no opportunity to be obedient to God's commands (they wouldn't exist). I would agree your statement could be explained as a series of causes and effects. Given God's command is the cause, our obedience is the effect which becomes the new cause, for the benefit of society (effect). In this line of thinking either the removal of God's command or the removal of our obedience to said command would remove the final effect (benefit of society). This again can all be accomplished independently of belief.

Surely you'd agree that an atheist isn't physically unable to obey the commandment "thou shalt not steal"?

Yes I certainly do agree. Belief in God is not a requirement to either feel the effects of God's commands or to be obedient to them.

Unless we're measuring via the yardstick of another objective effect, namely the cohesive running of a society.

How is 'the cohesive running of a society' objectively measured so as to be considered an objective effect?

---

A mutation occurs in the people species. This mutation changes the genetic make-up of the people species, producing a trait that allows communication with animals. People bearing this trait are now classified as the prophet species. As the process of natural selection occurs the more adapted species survives (prophet) and the less adapted species (people) do not survive (and this could reasonably occur through the prohpet species killing the people species). What does this have to do with morality? It's just evolution.

---

It's also not enough to constitute a change in species, making your model... moot.

I am being playful in my response here. For a person who in an earlier discussion stated that changes in eye color is evolution, I in no way believe that if we woke up tomorrow to a mutation that allowed some humans to communicate with animals, that you would deny it as a speciation event and not declare it proof of evolution!