reasonablefaith.org - Atheists Trying to Have Their Cake and Eat It Too on Morality. This video shows that when an atheist denies objective morality they also affirm moral good and evil without the thought of any contradiction or inconsistency on their part.
William Lane Craig is a very intelligent man but also extremely committed to Christian apologetics, to the point where he says stuff like this (timestamp 2:01):
That’s my argument, that’s all moral values are, on atheism, and that therefore as I say, rape, child abuse, these may be socially inconvenient, or taboo… [crosstalk] … What I’m arguing is that without God there is [sic] no absolute moral values, no absolute moral duties. […] So the pedophile, or the rapist, or the psycopath, or the person who wants to be a religiously intolerant persecutor is just acting out of fashion, he’s like the person who belches at a meal.
The real danger with people like Craig is that he loves his sophistry but is actually a competent philosopher, which means he can legitimately wipe the floor with non-philosophically-inclined scientists if they debate him.
Except that he never gives any reason, in these discussions, why God is the only conceivable source of moral value, he just asserts it and also asserts that “it’s far from obvious” that any other explanation is true. Which is great debating, really makes you think /s
Another fun bit of rhetorical slight of hand: he equivocates pedophilia, rape, psycopathy (I assume this really means psycho killers), and… religious intolerance…? *cough* One of these things is on a sliding scale that ain’t like the others.
Point being, it’s not just C-list conservative darlings like Phil Robertson who push the “no God, no morals” line, and use outrageous scenarios to rhetorically push people towards their view. You’ve also got “academic” Christian apologists doing it too.