The argument suggests that to have morals (or good and bad/evil for that matter) we need a moral law, and thus, we also need a moral lawgiver: a god. In order for “good” or “bad” or “evil” or “moral” to exist, it must—for some reason—be absolute and eternal and universal.
However, it doesn’t take long to see two peculiar and damaging points opposed to this claim (especially when concerning Christianity).
1) The so-called morals of the Old Testament vary almost completely from the New Testament morals. Isn't god unchanging and perfect?
2) If the average contemporary religious person acted a thousand years ago how they act now, they would be considered immoral, impious, or downright “evil”. It’s relative to time/culture.
According to The Bible, this “all-loving” god became quite angry at all living things on Earth—excluding Noah and his family—and decided, what the hell… why not drown everyone and everything in the world save one family and two of each animal. That’s right, folks, every newborn baby, every relative of Noah and his family, every saint, sinner, toddler, baby kitten, adult giraffe, artist, preacher, panda bear, and so on—all of them! God became so enraged with society that he not only killed the sinners who encouraged his wrath, but also all of the innocent children, animals, and anything else that enjoyed life. The bugs, however, were spared, because they thrive on such conditions. Are bugs god’s favored species?
A book written by dozens of anonymous people that we have nearly no historical account of. A book canonized by popes and preachers, who debated which books should be accepted and which should be cast aside… all by reason; not by prayer, meditation, or revelation. A book that’s first half is the polar opposite of the second half, but claims to have an unchanging and perfect god as the author. Amen.
Post Script in the form of a Nietzsche quote: "It is a curious thing that God learned Greek when he wished to turn author - and that he did not learn it better."