[ThinkDifferent]

They're just not being logically consistant, as they have faith in a moral code despite there being no more scientific evidence for such a code than there is scientific evidence for God.

The existence of God is neither necessary nor sufficient for a moral code. Or is the only reason you haven't gone on a killing spree because God says not to?

[jwalsh07]

Or is the only reason you haven't gone on a killing spree because God says not to?

The fact that he hasn't gone on a killing spree is neither here nor there. The question is if he did go on a killing spree for whatever reason, why is that wrong if his prime directive is to do what pleases him and killing pleases him?

[curiosity]

The existence of God is neither necessary nor sufficient for a moral code.

I never said it was. My point was that believing in a moral code requires no less faith than believing in God.