Another time indeed, as atheists can argue that correct human behavior is that which is good for man to achieve self-preservation, knowledge of the truth, propagation and education of the species, and social existence...
It is what ultimately defines these things that is the issue. Stalin and the like would argue achieving these goals required their policies, as would popes who required the extermination of those Rome decreed were heretics, as did early Prots.
However, at least the latter could appeal to a document that came to be established as the supreme s wholly God-inspired standard on faith and morality, bue to its Divine qualities and attestation, even though, as with a Constitution, it can be subject to varying degrees of interpretation.
In contrast, in atheism the individual is the supreme standard, not simply in deciding he will assent to one and interpret it, but atheism collectively rejects any one sure and supreme standard, and each can autocratically assert his own morality is superior to all moral documents, even that of God.
If an atheist can do all that, then god becomes just some powerless pitiful ineffectual being. How sad.
When we say human nature can decide what is moral we are essentially saying everyone can do what is right in their own eyes. There is no right or wrong.
Everyone knows it is wrong to murder but we simply don’t wish to acknowledge it. On something more closer to home, how many of us would tell our kids it’s alright to lie to us or steal from us?
Yes, there really is a code of moral behavior written on our hearts and in scripture. We just want to choose it whenever it’s convenient to us.