Recently Cardigan wrote that one of the reasons for writing his column was to challenge some of the misperceptions theists have regarding the world in general and their belief systems in particular. One of the biggest examples of this is the widespread idea that it's impossible to be moral without God. I've heard of "Christians" who no longer believe the doctrines, but stay in the church because they think society would break down if atheism became widespread. Humanist moral ethics are often denounced as relativism and "situation ethics," even though very little is known about what various nontheists have written about moral concerns throughout history.
About two months ago, I wrote a letter to my local paper examining some of the inconsistencies of theistic morality (which have been explored at this website and others, so I won't repeat them here). I asked the readers if it would suddenly become acceptable to ignore our laws and forget about everyone else if someone could prove definitively, once and for all, that God does not exist. What a dreamer I was-- actually asking people to think.
Two weeks later, the paper printed a reply from someone who obviously couldn't face the thought of a world without God. He dragged out all the old cliches without putting much thought into his letter. For example, he wrote that "morality is a planned condition of creation," then contradicted his unproven statement a few paragraphs later with this gem: "We need only look at the animal kingdom to reveal our actions if our being is not created from God's love and morality. In the animal kingdom murder, stealing and domestic abuse are the standards." Assuming that last sentence can be taken at face value, he is either telling us that animals are not part of God's creation (a position that won't gain him many friends among environmentalists) or that morality is in fact a human invention.
His brilliant letter also included this piece of wisdom typically heard from theists: "If we are random beings with finite expectancies, then it behooves all of us to grab as much as possible while we are on this earth. For if we have no continuing soul or being or recollection upon death, then what does it matter the conditions we leave behind?" I would've thought friends and family would be enough of a concern. Oh, I forgot-- we atheists don't have "family values." After all, if life is not sacred, it can "persist only until the strongest have expunged each other." Maybe he can explain to me why, with the notable exception of the communists, the strongest have almost always claimed that God was on their side.
I could go on taking apart this guy's letter, but I think I made my point. However, in a bit of delicious irony, on the same day the paper also printed a contribution from one of their local columnists. She didn't mention religion directly, but her column was about how sometimes traditions continue on after their usefulness has expired. If only a few more people would reexamine their Bibles with that piece of advice in mind.