Tithing and the first commandment? Both of these are part of being a Christian. An atheist doesn’t need either one, because he doesn’t believe in any particular deity.

Editor’s note: This comment was edited to remove gratuitous invective and ‘ad hominem’ propaganda.

Amy @ STR wrote a post about this back in 2008 that I think everyone should read. I am not going to post the whole thing here, but here is a teaser to pique your interest:

In debates, Christopher Hitchens often offers the following challenge: “Name one moral action performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever.” Leaving aside the fact that this challenge is based on a misunderstanding of the theist objection (he thinks the objection is that without God, we couldn't know right from wrong, when the actual objection is that there wouldn't be any right or wrong), the challenge itself is completely invalid when proposed by an atheist because, logically, it could never be answered to the satisfaction of an atheist, even if valid answers exist.
[Link]

I believe Hitchen only responded to the comedic remark but not the serious remark…

The entrire debate was pretty good to watch. It felt balanced and not at all like those debates where they pit the well-versed atheist against the 'idiot believer'.

The link provided by Duane is a very good response to the challenge posed by Hitchens. I didn't think of that at all :)
Of course, no argument is ever going to convince him to change his view. I get a feeling that his problem [with faith] is more of a personal, possibly emotional problem rather than a logical problem.

“It felt balanced and not at all like those debates where they pit the well-versed atheist against the ‘idiot believer’.”

No, instead they pitted a well-versed believer against an idiot atheist. I recommend the article posted at First Things, “Believe It Or Not” by David Hart, for a no-holds-barred analysis of just what I mean.

“I get a feeling that his problem (with faith) is more of a personal and possibly emotional problem, rather than a logical problem.”

His problem with the faith, at once both indicated by the substance of his arguments as well as predicted by the testimony of Scriptures, is a moral and spiritual problem; he is an unrepentant sinner at enmity with God. Your suspicion hits the mark squarely. But perhaps adding layers of further interest is the fact that his brother, Peter Hitchens, is a prolific conservative Christian, whose latest book, The Rage Against God, is a sharp and fascinating contrast to his brother’s vacuous tripe.

I'm afraid that I had a lot of trouble understanding that article, simply because of the use of so many difficult words. That's one thing that annoys me in these types of discussions. People seem to forget that not everyone's vocabulary or understanding of certain matter is on par with theirs.

As for Hitchens. Ryft, I think it was you who told me that – in regards to the question of when to use apologetics over evangelism or vice versa – once you get through the intellectual smokescreen you're likely to find the real source of the objection [to faith/God/religion].
There was a point in the Hitchens vs Craig debate where I felt that Hitchens was really exposing his real objection: “I don't want people telling me God told them what I can and can't do” (or something along those lines).

I think there is plenty to say about that position. I wonder if he feels the same about say…government (you could replace 'God' with anything else really).

Other than that, I agree with your thoughts on it as well.

I disagree. If the God being prayed too and loved amongst all others is a spiteful, angry, malicious, maniacal god, then it is hardly a moral action to pray to it.

It is actually an immoral act.

“If the God being prayed to and loved amongst all others is a spiteful, angry, malicious, maniacal god, then it is … actually an immoral act.”

What a bizarre comment. As if anyone would disagree with that.

… and your comment relates to the topic of morality, how?

Your insistence on the same question places you at odds with what Hitchens was requiring.

Hitchens's challenge does not require that we demonstrate that a moral lawgiver exists; he permits the theist, for the sake of argument, to assume the existence of such a lawgiver and then asks “What moral action can a believer perform that a non-believer can't?” to which Dr. Lane Craig aptly responds.

If you have an actual rejoinder to Dr. Lane Craig's response, please share it instead the red herrings you propose.

Thanks for the inaccurate satire of my argument. To break it down, danstermeister made a comment with a moral judgement against an infinite being to which I asked by what criteria he makes such a judgement. You then demanded that I demonstrate that such a being exists yet this demand is the red herring distraction as proving it has no bearing on the question at hand: that God is the criteria for making moral judgements. You can legitimately assume God's existence in order to continue the discussion.

I could ask you to define the terms "good" and "bad" but that would be detracting from what the video and Dr Craig's response is actually about. Instead, to remain somewhat on topic, would either you or I be deemed "good" or "bad" when compared to God's standard as outlined in the Bible?

I agree, Adam. However, whether or not they accept that standard of good is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. The topic has a specific scope (i.e. what does the Bible define as morally good) and discussion should remain within that scope lest it become a different topic (i.e. about moral relativism).

Dr Craig is not talking about moral relativism.

“It can logically be answered by Christians and accepted by atheists only if Christianity was proven to be true.”

Assuming you’re an atheist, or at least not a Christian, who posits that Christianity is not true, then by your very own admission you agree that Hitchens’s challenge is invalid, no?

“There is a reason why even Christians themselves say that it is about faith and not evidence …”

This smacks of a poor understanding of faith – much like something torn out of one of Richard Dawkins’s books, in fact. The whole reason why any of us here at The Aristophrenium are here at all is that we have reasons for our faith. Whether or not you would accept the reasons is of no account to us but you cannot accurately state that we have none.

“… this is because Christianity like other religions lack in any evidences or and stories found in the Bible are neither supported by reality. By reality i mean empirical evidences”

You mean ‘empirical evidences’, say, like archaeological finds? Here,
let me Google that for you.

“It is like saying to be a moral person you would have to believe in Islam …”

You misunderstand part of the response to Hitchens’s so-called challenge and seem to have not read Duane’s comment (or the post he linked to) carefully: it is not that if you’re an atheist that you can’t be good, it is that if there is no God there can be no such thing as good or bad.

Mathew:

I believe that you believe that slavery is immoral. I also know that you believe that killing someone because they do not believe in what you believe is also immoral. Than why does god himself condone and give guidelines on how to own, how much you should get, and how bad you can beat your slaves? Also to kill nonbelievers? Most Christian answer is that nonbelievers or people of other faith were seen as a disease and they needed to be exterminated yet their god says to keep the women that have not slept with a man for themselves. If you actually read the Bible and understood it you would most likely come to the conclusion that based on the issue of morality alone we humans are obviously morally superior to god based on his inconsistencies and commandments

I would rather you know what I believe before you begin criticizing it – and as I have not broached the subject of slavery here I am mystified that you think you understand my position enough in order to tell me I have misunderstood and not read the Bible.

While I don’t think any of us at The Aristophrenium have written on the subject before, you may find this short and succinct blog post at STR Place of some value: Does God Condone Slavery?

I will not moderate further comments to slavery or God’s character here as neither are relevant to the topic of the initial post. (Although you may email me directly if you wish to get my further thoughts on the matter.)

And can you desist with the ‘most Christians believe’ mantra? I find it very annoying that you want me to defend what ‘most others’ say.

EDIT 6 Dec 2012: You may be interested to know that my fellow AristoStaffer, Adam, has just published a post addressing some of the objections raised about the morality of God detailed in the Old Testament, We Don’t Hate Sin. So We Don’t Understand What Happened To The Cannanites. You may wish to post any relevant comments/objections there.