Moral Challenge...Whats Your Point?

During the book discussion of chapters 4 and 5 on the issue of morality and natural law I issued a challenge. I cannot claim authorship of the challenge as it has been issued by others throughout history in varied forms, but the exact form I tossed out is from Christopher Hitchens (an avowed atheist, actually he prefers "anti-theist", a group to which I don't claim membership; in answer to Bob's question to me on Sunday).

The challenge is two-fold and goes like this:
1. name an ethical or moral statement or action, spoken or committed by a "believer" or religious person that could NOT also be uttered or committed by a "non-believer".

2. Now name an unethical or immoral statement or action that could ONLY be uttered or committed by a "believer" or religious person.

"What's your point?", was the question that followed so I thought I'd better restate the challenge for those who may have missed it and then attempt an explanation of why I threw it out there.

As a most basic answer to the question, "What's your point", I would simply reply..."well, something to consider, that's all". After all, C.S. Lewis is laying the foundation fairly clearly that he believes that morality is "written", so to speak, as a natural law and, therefore also stating as Smerdyakov did in The Brothers Karamazov, "If there is no God, then nothing can be immoral. Everything becomes lawful, even crime. Crime becomes not only lawful, but inevitable".

It is a premise that is often argued, even among believers of the same faith, and should be recognized as one of the hallmark points for consideration and introspection as we read from C.S. Lewis. It is commonly referred to as the Axiological argument (Axios= Value).

As a more complex, yet hopefully still simple, answer to the question, "What's your point"?, my answer would be, "Well, since C.S. Lewis, in this particular book, has successfully set forth his premise that morality is natural law from God and, therefore, objective (not subjective), it automatically presupposes that if God did NOT create this natural law that Lewis speaks about we would all drift into lawlessness and moral anarchy".

Personally, I disagree with C.S. Lewis' reasoning on its face since it doesn't consider any other options (which should make anybody suspicious of a premise, any premise). It doesn't make it wrong, simply questionable when no other ideas are presented for consideration.

The challenge was thrown out on the table to give another perspective while letting the individual think for him or herself as to how to interpret the challenge, although I think the second part of the challenge says, quite loudly in fact, the exact opposite of what dear Smerdyakov posited, is there anything that is NOT permitted when one believes its commanded by God.

Please don't jump to any conclusions as to whether this Axiological argument is leading to whether or not there is a God, its not. Its merely a point for introspection...