Every time I state that there is no morality without an eternal reason for acting in a prescribed way I am attacked by various correspondents. As I have a perfectly logical reason for believing this to be true and, even though I have begged people to give me a logical reason why it should not be true, nobody ever has, I will continue to say that atheism can have no real morality attached to it. However, unreal as morality may or may not be our experiences of life, at least, feel real. When we are depressed we experience a feeling that we would prefer not to experience. The converse is true with happiness. Some physical experiences are enjoyable, whilst some physical experiences are painful. No matter what esoteric ideas we may have about the true nature of experience for all intents and purposes pleasure is good and pain is bad. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable, in fact it is the only sensible course of of action, to maximise our pleasure and minimise our pain. If we do that for others then we can expect that others will do that for us and so we end up with a practical pseudo-morality for a godless world.
In such a godless world all claims that something is better than another thing must be backed up by utilitarian logic based on the pseudo-morality I proposed above. You cannot, for example, claim that we should not covet our neighbour's ox simply because that what it says in the Bible. However, you could claim that such covetousness is wrong because it may well lead to a loss of happiness for the owner of the ox.
If we follow this code of communal living, the value of specific truths are dependant on the consequences of making them public. Truth, in and of itself, has no value. It is neither good nor bad. Basically, we can believe whatever we like as long as it does not hurt anybody else. Therefore, if a scientist makes the statement that there is absolutely no evidence that a certain homeopathic remedy cures cancer but there is evidence that a certain drug cures cancer, that would be a good truth that should be accepted by all as it will lead cancer sufferers to seek the right treatment and be cured rather than taking the wrong treatment and die prematurely and painfully. But for a scientist to claim that the earth goes round the sun rather than the sun circling the earth may only be a matter of interest. Such a discovery may cause certain people pleasure but there is no reason, in a godless universe, to campaign against contrary views even if they are poppycock.
Religion is tied in with all sorts of rules and regulations, some of which are good (such as charity) and some of which are bad (such as the oppression of certain groups within society) according to my proposed atheistic morality. But, if you strip away all these encumbrances from religion you are left with basic beliefs that affect only the believer. For example, Christians believe in a loving God who created the universe. It would be a perverse thinker who regarded such a belief as a painful thing. In fact, overwhelmingly, scientific investigation has shown that believers in such concepts derive great happiness from their belief. Therefore, to work to disabuse such people of their beliefs would be to remove happiness from them and would be contrary to the pseudo-moral code of atheism. The claim that the non-existence of God is the truth means nothing in a meaningless universe, so why bother?
I am not saying that we should hide the truth or stop looking for truth. Scientific truth should be accesible to everybody. But, to deliberately set out to persuade believers that there is no god is, at best, pointless and, at worst, an evil thing to do if you believe that, even in a godless universe, we should seek to increase happiness and decrease suffering.