I think that this is a misinterpretation of the OP's argument.

It appears to me that the OP is not saying that people who follow the OTT are not morally responsible for their actions, but instead that they are lazy because they haven't bothered to determine why something might be immoral.

That is, someone following a book says "X is immoral because of the text," which can lead to strange results (e.g. "the text says wearing red on wednesdays is punishable by death, therefore it must be so, and I don't need to understand why" ).  Instead, to be morally upright, it would be better to determine why something might or might not be moral, which would hopefully yield a more functional society (arguably the point of morally to begin with, although probably not if you follow the OTT).

Ohhhhh inflammatory, I like this all ready.

Moral absolutes do not exist outside an idealist point of view. <Insert name of holy text here> says murder is wrong. However, murder and genocide are ok if <insert name of deity here> says its ok. History is rife with examples of the supposed "moral" side commiting acts that are morally questionable. I could rationalize killing Hitler if knew it would save the lives of million, however <insert name of holy text here> says it's wrong. Absolute morals are naturally incompatible with our "human" view of the world as I see it. The bible, quran or whatever are claimed to be the perfect moral law, but this is a mighty incredible claim. They aren't even good guidelines because moral dilemmas are not a choice between what is right and what is wrong. Moral dilemmas are the choice between two, or maybe more, difficult outcomes.

Not sure I agree with the OP on one key point. I believe they are lazy in that it is easier to demonize atheists as immoral instead of looking into a mirror and asking whether or not one of their own views stand up to scrutiny.

It would be funny if you could use the Nuremberg defense with a book. "I was only reading orders!" And thank you, the topic was pretty lonely. I have a feeling it's because the believers haven't hit it yet.

What's amazing to me is that despite lots and lots of encouragement from the major monotheistic texts, we've abandoned stoning people to death as a punishment. Surely only an absolute superior entity could tell us what is moral, except we figured out for ourselves that stoning people to death would be vile and barbaric. I wonder how we reached that conclusion without a holy book. It's like ... it's like we have methods of discerning right from wrong independent from any book.

Naw, that's too unbelievable.

I always found it a bit suspect that an omnipotent deity could want anything. I mean, how is that even possible? Omnipotence means you get everything you want right away. You don't have to wait, it's just done. You can't be disappointed. If you could be disappointed, it means you're not omnipotent.

I think that actually negates sin, too.

Or at the very least, oppressive. It's also massively condescending. "Well, since we know you can't make moral decisions, here are the rules."

Some people will even say, "That's okay for stupid or lazy people, because otherwise they wouldn't be good." But that's assuming exhaustive knowledge of all people, which is ridiculous, and still condescending. I mean, I understand the metaphor of original sin, but as an ideology, it just sucks. How paranoid and control-freakish is it to believe that everybody is bad until brow-beaten?

Did I just have an epiphany or has everyone else come up with this already?  God is omnipotent, therefor he is bored.  That's why he's such a s.o.b.!  Bored and having fun torturing piddling little humans, starting wars, etc.

I don't know if you just had an epiphany, but I'm pretty sure someone else has come up with this - it's a pretty simple argument. I'd love to hear someone chime in and give it a name, which is kind of why I posted it.

You forgot creamy. But I've never found language to be a very compelling form of communication. Text is, often, even more barren. Subconscious drives are much more motivating, if you ask me, than any volume of texts. In the instance of the Smoothie, I don't need to read that the Smoothie is delicious. I don't even need to be told that the Smoothie is delicious. I can taste it. And while taste can be described in words, it cannot be experienced as such. This, I think, makes it much more intuitively appealing than some god who advertises himself in books, magazines, with multi-national corporations backing him, and through word-of-mouth viral marketing.

I'm almost positive Nietzsche said something like god could not stand himself, therefore he created the universe and us so as to have a distraction and deviate his attention from having to contemplate himself, which would render us as a sick reality show. However I can't remember for the life of me the exact source for that.

Damn, if we are just a cosmic reality show, that means we all are just a bunch of Paris Hiltons, nooooooooo!!! I feel dirtyyy!!!!!

*runs off to take a loong bath*

"Believers are Morally Lazy"  ------ geezzzz ?

Damn problem of Babel. 

1. Believers , I believe I AM AWAKE ?

2. Morally ,  please fuck me ?

3. Lazy , me like lazy ?

I hate language It does't work very well, 

ummmm I must meditate ... I must evolve !!!

Shit,  this hurts ...... so to the better , hurry up evolution ..... 

[ Will , you rock , me just messing with words as usual .... ]

I mean modern western civilization, yeah. Like slavery, stoning still happens, sure. And it's still the stupidest punishment for adultery I've ever heard of. Even "an eye for an eye" is better than that, and that one's just childish.

How on earth is "eye for an eye", childish?

its revenge... justice in its most base form

Follow me here: an eye for an eye ... for adultery.

I don't even know how you'd manage that logistically.

Which brings us back to childish.

By the way, I love the comic strip suggestion in your signature. I know some people for whom the punishment should be exactly as described (flaming zombie wildlife, etc.) Of course, that's just for being themselves.

Tanath has said that "if someone breaks a rule, their actions should be considered in the context of the situation, and the reasons for the rule should be considered to see whether they're applicable."

This is all well and good, but is not quite as simple as it seems.  A rule cannot contain the moment of application - I mean to say that a rule cannot tell you when to apply the rule or refrain from applying it.  A rule may be more or less general/specific, but it lacks particularity.

Taking any religious rule, the reason for applying it or not will therefore be a separate reason from the rule itself, and may be religious or non-religious (it may also be contained in the holy texts or there may be no indication in the texts).  If the reason for applying/not applying the religious rule is non-religious then it problematises religious morality; if the reason for applying the rule is itself religious then it does not suffer from the same problem, but does suffer from the particularity void of all rules and requires deeper thought than simple rule-adherence which is often a feature of religious morality.

Another issue is the different orders of reasons for decisions - a first order reason is a reason involved in the weighing of reasons (reasons for or against going to the pub on a particular Wednesday, for example) whereas a second order reason (closely related to the concept of 'exclusionary reasons' insofar as they exclude first order reasons, is a reason whether to decide for a reason (for example, a decision that you'll only go to the pub at weekends, regardless of the reasons on any particular Wednesday).  Religions are heavy on second order reasons but rather light on the former, when it comes to moral commandments: they say in effect "ignore the reasons for or against X (abortion for example) - just don't do it, because god says so."

Which is why you need to think for yourself.

The reason for following a rule or not will always be seperate from the rule itself, but there must be some criteria by which one chooses whether or not to follow a rule. Since no rule will be applicable in all situations, one must always consider the reasons for a rule and whether they're applicable. The problem you mention is broader than religion. Any sense of morality that requires always obeying any or all rules (or a person) requires giving up the choice of whether or not to obey, and is actively shirking one's moral responsibility.

I'm not sure this "first order" and "second order" ethical reasoning is a valid or useful distinction. Or perhaps you just need to explain what you mean better. What about principles?

I've always considered that religious systems are not really about 'real' morality. They are much more analogous to an inferior version of our secular legal systems, because they rely so much on commandments, prohibitions, and extreme carrot and stick (heaven and hell, etc)  'encouragement'. Inferior because of lack of proportionality, excessive delay in administering justice, and no proper appeal and advocacy system.

The nearest they get to true ethical guidelines to assist us with practical moral decision-making is some version of the Golden Rule, which is ultimately subjective and, while it has some merit, not really adequate to the task on its own.

Damn, when reading your response I realized I had omitted the word 'not' in the first part of that post.... (now corrected).

Although I feel from your response you got the spirit of my post.