You and an atheist could stand side by side and witness someone get murdered and both be equally called to action.
That's not objective morality. That's hang-ups. Everyone has hang-ups. Without G-d there's no difference between distaste for mass murder and a distaste for stepping on cracks in a sidewalk. I keep saying this, you keep ignoring it.
The only difference is that you're inserting an extra, unneeded step by saying that the only reason you find this appalling is because your imaginary friend said so.
My "imaginary friend" tells me the difference between what is objectively morally wrong and what is a mere subjective hang-up, however universal.
The whole point of morality is submission to the Creator's will. The smooth functioning of society, far from being the main purpose of morality, is merely a side-effect.
You've got it backwards.
A creator's will erases morality, since you're just doing a cost benefit analysis as to what will get you better rewards in heaven.
In your world, there's no reason to be good for goodness' sake, or to do the right thing when no ones looking, since, in your eyes, someone is ALWAYS looking and keeping tabs on you.
You are moral because you expect an everlasting reward for it.
First of all, all your arguments are based on a rejection of chr*stianity. I am not a chr*stian.
The purpose of morality is not reward. The purpose is submission to and obedience of the Creator. Period. End of discussion. Judaism (and Noachism) is far less dogmatic about the afterlife than chr*stianity. Its stress is on obedience to Divine commandments in this world. In fact, the only reason the world was created was so Israel could obey the Torah. And the point of Torah is not following one's instincts to do good but to obey G-d.
And even many chr*stians (the antinomian Protestants) completely disconnect behavior from one's fate after death, saying instead that this depends solely on whether or not one is "saved." So even there your argument is fallacious.
We "know" they [good and evil] exist? How?
Because we can witness and read about goodness, evil, sacrifice, and all of the other eccentricities of mankind in civilizations, peoples, and groups who never knew, do not know, or choose not to follow a Judeo-Christian creator.
That's exactly it! They're eccentricities! And whether some appeal to you and others appall you, or many, or all, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of objective good and objective evil. All that "goodness, evil, and sacrifice" is meaningless in a meaningless universe. A meaningless universe cannot be given objective meaning no matter how much you pretend your hang-ups and eccentricities matter!
G-d is the Creator. Among the things G-d creates (by His decrees) is good and evil. Without G-d neither objective good nor objective evil can exist. So the "problem of evil" is not a problem for Theists as many think it is, but for atheists, since it is G-d who makes objective evil possible and without Whom it cannot be said to exist.
Is there any need for me to continue repeating these points?
The purpose of morality is not reward. The purpose is submission to and obedience of the Creator. Period. End of discussion.
All that "goodness, evil, and sacrifice" is meaningless in a meaningless universe. A meaningless universe cannot be given objective meaning no matter how much you pretend your hang-ups and eccentricities matter!
G-d is the Creator. Among the things G-d creates (by His decrees) is good and evil. Without G-d neither objective good nor objective evil can exist. So the "problem of evil" is not a problem for Theists as many think it is, but for atheists, since it is G-d who makes objective evil possible and without Whom it cannot be said to exist.
Is there any need for me to continue repeating these points?
No you needn't keep repeating the same flawed reasoning.
You refuse to address the fact that those who do not believe and do not "submit" before any celestial authority are capable of good, just as someone who takes his cues from a higher power.
You keep asking the same tired question that I hear from religious people all the time: If there's no god, then who's to decide what's good and what's evil.
You use this one point to hammer away over and over again without looking at the probable answers.
All it takes to understand this is ask yourself what you would do tomorrow if you found out there was no god. Would you still love your children, work hard, and live a righteous life? Or would you cash out all your stocks and spend it on cocaine and hookers and slit throats of perfect strangers. You do yourself a disservice if you assert that the only thing that makes murder abhorrent to you is because god says it is. Find in yourself what would make you still live a moral life after a realization that god doesn't exist, and you'll have taken the first step.
Existentialists and other philosophers have been talking about the nature of right and wrong for millenia, there's far greater answers out there if you want to do the looking.
The belief that god is necessary for good and evil to exist can be refuted with two main points.
First of all, no one can deny that faith in a higher power can never, ever under any circumstances be a guarantee of virtue. At the same time we can see virtue in people without faith.
Secondly, you cannot name for me one ethical action or statement that can only be performed by a believer and not a non-believer. Faith is not required to be an ethical and moral person, therefore, there's no need for a creator.
I assume your answer would be that with no god there's no ethics, which makes me wonder how Plato and Aristotle were able to write vast volumes on the subject without you there to remind them that their task was impossible, since they didn't have a Judeo-Christian creator in their repertoire.