I recall watching a debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig in which Christopher issues a challenge to name for him an ethical statement or action undertaken by a believer, that Christopher (as an atheist) couldn’t undertake or do or state.
I don’t think it was addressed and I don’t know if anyone has ever taken him up on that, but it seems like this would be an extremely simple challenge to complete.
I’m sure Christopher agrees with (not that he actually has done any of that, just that he doesn’t see a problem with it) contraception, abortion, masturbation, pornography, fornication, divorce, divorce and remarriage (adultery), lust, homosexual unions, gay adoption, sodomy, etc. etc. Him agreeing with just any one of these (and I do in fact recall him arguing for homosexual acts in one debate) thereby already makes him an immoral person. Not because he is an imperfect human being like the rest of us, but because he blatantly and vehemently opposes the good there is in standing against the immoral aforementioned acts.
Let’s say he somehow conforms by opposing everything on that list and is a seemingly perfect example of a moral person.
Well, there’s still one thing he can’t do. God is morality and goodness itself. Refusing to acknowledge this very simple fact and blatantly and vehemently opposing it thereby makes one an immoral person by definition. Acknowledging God as good and as Lord is one thing an atheist or Chris could never do, clearly. :eek:
There is a difference between being a “good person” and a moral person. All moral people are good, but not all good people are moral.