> God cannot be proved or disproved, so stop wasting your time!
The world is not so simple. Most people on Earth use some sort of God as their ethical basis. Some even argue that atheists cannot possibly have ethics, for they have no God. Thus whether to believe that the root of ethics is God, and whose God, is a crucial question.
What atheism argues is that reason alone, not faith, should guide our acts; an idea worth to teach, even if we must kill God in the way.
> What atheism argues is that reason alone, not faith, should guide our acts;
Surely this is axiomatic - you don't derive this by reason. So you are establishing that you should always derive logically your system of ethics except when choosing a system of ethics. Isn't there some crazy dissonance there for you. (I don't think you can square this circle I think it will boil down to a parallel of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem - you have to assume logic into your worldview by faith!).
I don't believe that "atheists cannot possibly have ethics" (that's not a Christian position as it's clear in the Bible that God has created in each of us a conscience) but I do think that atheist can't have objective ethical standards that are logically derived. It seems incompatible in my mind that neo-darwinist atheists can claim any action to be objectively right or wrong; things just are under such a world view.
How could you possibly have objective anything in a randomly occurring macroscopic quantum anomaly?
The world is not so simple. Most people on Earth use some sort of God as their ethical basis. Some even argue that atheists cannot possibly have ethics, for they have no God. Thus whether to believe that the root of ethics is God, and whose God, is a crucial question.
What atheism argues is that reason alone, not faith, should guide our acts; an idea worth to teach, even if we must kill God in the way.