You give four secular reasons for acting morally. You use terms like, reward and punishment, happiness and success. But tell me, who decides what is a reward? What is happiness really? How about success? On person might consider something a reward that another person considers a punishment.

Suppose one person might think that cheating on a test will bring him happiness while another person thinks that cheating on the test will bring unhappiness. Who is right? There are two possibilities:

1. If both of them are right then values are relative and there is still no foundation for morality. How can a teacher say that not cheating on a test will bring everyone more happiness than not cheating on a test? The teacher cannot because in your system happiness is relative to the individual. One person might get happiness from cheating while another will get happiness from following the rules. Thus, relative values cannot be a foundation for morality. The atheist system still fails.

2. If one is right, how do we know that? There has to be an absolute Standard to determine that. Hence, God.

---You write: “Sometimes religion teaches people that they should harm other people. In the Old Testament, which is more mythology than history, Yahweh’s morality demands that practitioners of other religions actually be killed (Deuteronomy13:6-10; 17:2-4). Believers of various faiths seem to me no better than atheists at not harming other people; the history of Christian Europe is a good example.”

Firstly, what is with the random assertion in the middle of your argument that the Old Testament is more mythology than history? Not only is it out of place, it’s arrogant. How do you know that my friend?

Secondly, people are wicked. Christians are people. Therefore Christians are going to be wicked just like everyone else. That doesn’t discount the religion, it just means that people aren’t perfect.

Thirdly, an objection to God’s morality is silly, especially by you. You don’t believe in absolute morality, so how can you reject Christianity because you think Yahweh is immoral? It isn’t consistent. (Also because Yahweh is the ideal of Goodness and cannot tolerate evil He is justified in destroying evil. Men are evil. Does the Creator do wrong when he destroys his creation? The painter does not do wrong when he destroys the painting he created; likewise Yahweh does no wrong when he destroys his creation.)

---You write: “Second, YES, atheists can and do answer the question, “Why should humans not harm each other?” It is not a big mystery. Actions lead to consequences. In my experience, most atheists realize the simple fact that they depend upon other people in one way or another for survival, love, and happiness; therefore, they try to act in such a way that will benefit both themselves and others. It only makes sense. Randomly harming people or harming people without legal/just cause or the need for defense only leads to trouble. Do you need me to list actual examples? There are many practical considerations: psychological wellbeing, reputation, effective reaching of one's goals, conscience, sympathy, avoidance of negative consequences, and promotion of the public wellbeing.”

Once more you use terms like survival, love and happiness. But why are these qualities desirable? Why should they be? Without an absolute Standard these questions are unanswerable. What is well-being? Perhaps one person considers death to be expedient towards his well-being. Another person considers murdering people to be expedient towards his well-being? Under your system they have to be right. If well-being happiness, love, etc. are relative, they are not a foundation for morality at all. What one person considers moral is still different from what another person considers moral. How can you condemn a murderer for his action if it contributed to his happiness? His morality is just as true as another persons. How can you say the Nazi society was wrong in its actions? You can’t. Don’t you see a problem with that?

---you write: “And what makes non-religious morality even better is that it relies on reason, cause-effect, experience, knowledge, as opposed to mere stories which religions offer not only without proof, but with reason to DISbelieve.”

Hard atheism claims to be rational, but it isn’t really. Atheists have no reason NOT to believe in God. There are arguments in favor of God’s existence, but there are none in favor of His nonexistence. (There are only arguments against the arguments for God’s existence…which aren’t the same thing.) Theism has arguments in favor of it…atheism doesn’t.

Also, what is rationality really? Who decides what is rational? Nature? Or is reason relative? Because once more (I know this must be getting annoying), only an absolute Standard can determine what is rational.

---You write: "Do you believe that society should be set up according to Plato’s Republic?"

Of course not, but I do agree with Plato’s position on absolutes.

And I’ll respond to all your attacks on Christianity in a bit. They’re a bit off topic, since we can’t even agree on the existence of absolute values and Christianity is a long way from there.