“Now Christopher talked about atrocities, but again, on the atheistic world view—here’s the main point—how do you define what an atrocity is? Who defines it? Who has the authority to define what an atrocity is? The carbon atom? The benzene molecule? I’m not saying you have to believe in god to be moral. I’m not saying that only religious people are moral. I’m not saying atheists can’t be moral. I’m not saying atheists don’t know morality. I’m saying there’s no way to justify what is right and what is wrong unless there's some authority that provides it. What is the authority? In a materialistic world view there is no authority.

The carbon atom has no moral authority over you. And it seems that Christopher goes on and on about how he does not want to be under any some kind of divine totalitarianism. That is a moral rejection of god. Where does he come up with this immoral totalitarianism? His world view does not afford immorality because his world view does not afford morality. He has to borrow from the Christian world view in order to argue against it. In fact, he has to sit in god’s lap to slap his face. Where does he get morality from? Where does he get reason from? Where does he get mathematics from? Where does he get consciousness from? Where does the universe—he said there are explanations for where the universe came from, atheistic. I’d love to hear them. I haven’t heard one yet. How does something come from nothing with extreme fine tuning? What is the explanation for that?

He said there are arguments for the beginning of life that are naturalistic. Not according to the people who are studying the matter. How about Francis Crick? If I could find his quote here,... Francis Crick said, “Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one because there’s too much speculation running after too few facts.”

— Frank Turek (2008), “Hitchens vs Turek, Debate: Does God Exist?, Virginia Commonwealth University, Sep 8 [1]

“How can we reason if we’re just molecules in motion [If naturalism is true, how can we even reason if we are just chemicals and motion?]? If we’re just ‘moist robots’, why should anybody believe what I say or you say? If every thought I have is a result of a previous natural cause over which I have no control and the same for you?”

— Frank Turek (2018), “Naturalism Can’t Justify Reason” (debate with Michael Shermer) (0:30-) (Ѻ), Feb 14

“Michael, you are a materialist, so what is the chemical composition of justice?”

— Frank Turek (2018), “Naturalism Can’t Justify Reason” (Ѻ|1:08-), Feb 14