Moral values can differ from religion to religion, but there are common themes in religious moral systems which can be identified and criticized. There are flaws in most religious systems of morality and thus a basis for rejecting the idea that religion is necessary for moral values.
The primary architect of liberation theology in the Latin-American and Catholic context is Gustavo Gutierrez. A Catholic priest who grew up in grinding poverty in Peru, Gutierrez employed Marxs critiques of ideology, class, and capitalism as part of his theological analysis of how Christianity should be used to make peoples lives better here and now rather than simply offer them hope of rewards in heaven.
Quite a few politicians and citizens want the government to display the Ten Commandments on public grounds and in various government buildings, like schools. In such a situation, it becomes reasonable to ask: What exactly are these 'Ten Commandments'? What many dont realize is that there arent really 'the' Ten Commandments; instead, there are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments.
When trying to make a case for some position or idea, we frequently encounter questions which challenge the coherency or validity of that position. When we are able to adequately answer those questions, our position becomes stronger. When we cannot answer the questions, then our position is weaker. If, however, we avoid the question altogether, then our reasoning process itself is revealed as possibly weak.
The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism out there. It comes up in a variety of forms, but all of them are based on the assumption that the only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a reason reject atheism and convert to Christianity.
The use of such a patently religious phrase for a national motto is used by fundamentalists as an excuse to have the government promote their beliefs.
Creationists frequently complain that evolution isn't valid or genuine science, but exactly the opposite is the case: evolution meets the criteria generally accepted by scientists as defining science and the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as science. Evolution is the central organizing framework for the biological sciences and is just as scientifically valid as analogous theories in other scientific fields: plate tectonics, atomic theory, quantum mechanics, etc.
Conservative evangelical Christians often use the label 'values voters' to describe those who vote on the basis of religious values. At least, that's what they would like everyone to think - the label sounds nice and broad, but it incorrectly assumes that all religious believers not only have the same values, but also the same ideas about how those values should be reflected in public policy.
Are you uncertain about the existence of God? Do you doubt the existence of God? Most people would probably regard the two states as being identical, or at least identical in all of the essentials, but that would be incorrect. Uncertainty and doubt are surely related, but if we look closely at them we find that they are quite different in the underlying attitudes.
It is common for Christians and adherents of other major religions like Islam and Judaism it describe their god as "good" or even 'perfectly good.' At the same time, though, it is obvious to even the most casual observer that there is a great deal of evil in the world. The aforementioned religions also commonly describe their god has having prepared a form of eternal punishment for those who fail to live up to certain standards of behavior and/or belief.