A Case For Christ -The Telling Voice of God Through Nature

I asked an atheist to define morality for me. Fair or faulty?

https://pixabay.com/en/cross-sunset

“A particular action or choice is moral or right when it promotes happiness, well-being or health, or it somehow minimizes harm, or suffering or both. A particular action or choice is immoral or wrong when it somehow diminishes happiness, well-being or health, or it somehow causes unnecessary harm or suffering or both. If happiness is diminished it is wrong - we know this without having a god tell us.”

Okay, after using his premise to define morality, apply those standards to a sex offender or some creep watching child pornography on his computer. His actions would be justified as morally right under those standards. Think about it. He would argue his actions are promoting happiness, well-being or health, no harm or suffering going on. If happiness is diminished, it is wrong... and naked children keep him happy so... it would be morally right for him to continue engaging in that activity.

Without God and his standards for morality, we have no objective basis to justify being morally indignant towards anything. Without God, essentially this situation would just be a bag of biological material watching a screen of under developed bags of biological material getting bumped into. It would be time and chance acting on matter, right? so what? As a Christian, I can call watching child porn morally wrong and have a justification to feel angry toward it, where as the atheist can but has no justification to call it so. We hope for the lost to acknowledge our creator one day