If you reject God, and eliminate Him from your ontology, and deny His existence, do you also reject the idea of good and evil? If you refuse God, what is your reasoning for right and wrong? It could hardly be innate human nature, since the natural course for man is to gratify urges, and we only curb those urges and control them on the basis of either what is right or wrong in God’s eyes or in society’s—and right and wrong in all societies has been determined over generations of time by their belief in a deity, and the will of that deity shaped right and wrong. (Think of the Janes, who believe it morally reprehensible unknowingly to step on a bug and kill it.)In fact, on what moral authority may man act? Can right and wrong be determined by measure against absolute truth? Does someone who rejects God accept absolute truth? Generally not. But even the acceptance of absolute truth does not give the answer to what is right and wrong. Can a moral standard then be created on the basis of traditions? How were those traditions formed? What happens when cultures merge that have had traditions that contain ideas of right and wrong that clash? Do you accept the traditions of Athenians? or Visigoths?

The cannibals, or the Quakers? If you reject God, how can you judge right and wrong, good and evil? How can you say what is moral and what is immoral? It seems that those who reject God also reject His morality, and accept only Rousseau’s, that all the morality of our actions is determined alone by the judgment we pass on them, and nothing we do is wrong unless it harms someone else. It seems to me that in the main it is the immoralists who claim there is no God, simply to remove the accusations of their own immorality.