I think it’s a problem that people are considered immoral if they’re not religious. That’s just not true…. If you do something for a religious reason, you do it because you’ll be rewarded in an afterlife or in this world. That’s not quite as good as something you do for purely generous reasons.
LISA RANDALL, Discover Magazine, July 2006
It has been argued, often, by the religious that, one who does not believe as they do, in an invisible overlord, has not the capacity to act morally. Many a religious apologist have filled the internet with this type of banter. Many sheeples seem to believe this as true and often ask the atheist how or on what ground does he claim to act morally.
The atheist in her defense has pointed the theist to the Euthyphro Dilemma[pdf] in the slim hope that the theist may spend a few minutes of their time to consider the challenge as presented by Plato. It appears to me, either that the theist does not read or if they do read, are incapable of understanding the problem of Socrates in the dialogue.
To help the theist therefore, a kind fellow, Max Maxwell, has developed several questions based on the Socratic method. In the Moral bankruptcy of faith, he explores the inadequacy of religious faith in adjudicating on morality. I would like any theist who visits this page to leave a comment on what they think Max has ignored or where they think his reasoning is fallacious.
I would also challenge the theist to convincingly tell me and other readers here why, if religion* has no say on morals, doesn’t answer why we suffer and has no evidence in its support among others, why they are still religious. Given that the religious person believes the atheist is lost, I think this will go along way into bringing them back to the fold.
*Whenever religion is used in this blog, it means belief in the supernatural.