It is funny how these things always lead to questions of ethics and the belief that atheists have no foundation for morality. Yet the converse question never seems to get answered. I wonder if Mr Driscoll is familiar with Euthyphro's dilema? If he is, then he should at least understand why many philosophers are of the position that a God alone cannot provide a foundation for morality - perhaps he could address this so that we can better uderstand his position? Rather than claim that atheists need religion for such a foundation, explain how it is possible for religion to provide one.

The truth is that most religious folk do not use their religious texts alone to prescribe their ethics, but their text plus there own judgement. A book such as the Bible has many condtradictions and at times prescribes many things that most Christians would find objectionable - so they use their own judgement as to what to accept and what to reject. This is in part why there are soooooo many different Christian demoninations, and so often a great deal of argument within them.

Also, the arguments over who killed how many and why are pointless. We see such killing from both atheists and theists alike and frankly, with the exception of fundamentalist actions (be they suicide bombs or shooting abortionists), they have seldom been about either atheism or theism. They have been about power and the elimination of any competing authority. Further, such arguments are irrelevant in that they do NOTHING to establish the truth of either theism or atheism.

My own position is that I find the concept of God to lack coherence and so I can no more believe that it exists than I can believe in square triangles. Nor do I accept the notion of objective morality as usually understood because, like Hume, I don't find it very coherent. However, that does not make me a nihilist.

Mr Driscoll's comment that "[atheists] believe in things such as celebrities and/or governments to tell them how to live and make choices for them.  They know about God, but choose to reject him.  They feel they are smarter and that there are far more superior/intellectual things to believe in." is frankly absurd. I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself, which is why I questioned the religion I was brought up with in the first place - I certainly don't follow celebtrity and I only accept states as de facto and acknowledge them out of pragmatism. If he is suggesting that I put aside intellectualism and let a priest or a book do my thinking for me, then I'm afraid that I would consider that irresponsible. I will think for myself, act accordingly, and accept responsibility for the consequences.