Atheist: It is wrong to teach the Bible to your children because you're lying to them.
Response: Didn't you say you were an atheist who believes in evolution? Your assertion is actually self-refuting. I'll show why below.
First, I do believe lying is wrong. But for the sake of argument, if all human beings are merely chemical accidents, as you affirm, what does it matter whether I lie to someone, especially if it has survival value? How can you be outraged at mere chemical interactions?, since, according to you, that's what we are, and nothing more.
Second, as an atheist you claim there are no universally binding moral codes. Yet here you have appealed to some objective moral standard that you think is binding on me - that I am morally obligated to not teach the bible to my son. How do you know what is wrong, not just for yourself, but for others? By what standard?
You see, your assertion is self-refuting because, by appealing to objective morality, you just acknowledged that (although suppressed) deep down you believe in God, a universal lawgiver. For universally binding moral laws don't come from rocks.
I believe atheists have morals. There are many very moral atheists that I personally know..We know atheists have morals. Off course. They were created in God's image so they cannot escape the fact that we are moral beings. That is not the question at all. The question is how do atheists account for universally binding morality? Atheists claim to be moral relativists but then turn around and say that other people are morally wrong. That is a contradiction. As soon as you say others are immoral, you are no longer a relativist.
It is one thing to say you have moral preferences for yourself, it is quite another to be morally outraged and say OTHERS are morally obligated to follow your morality. I ask again, by what standard? Yours?
Evolution and the Challenge of Morality by Jason Lisle