# Morality without religion?



## No Limit

I believe people who don't have a religion or religious beliefs can determine right from wrong without having to believe in God. How can you draw up right from wrong though if there's no "higher power" you have to answer to? I'm not trying to troll. I just want to know.


----------



## Luna Sea

Same way all the religious people did - from the norms and values of society. All the important rules in the Bible were the laws of society first.


----------



## BeyondOsiris

It's just something that's inherently obvious.


----------



## minimized

I don't understand the philosophy that you need a god or a book to understand right from wrong. And this is evidenced by the way a lot of the people who hold that philosophy act.

What's the answer? To me, it is inherent - a mentality of humanity and society. How do you figure that murder is wrong? Understanding your own autonomy and space taken up in time and how that is shared by others, as well as the reverberations of your actions.


----------



## vstar401

Empathy, Well-Being of Fellow Humans


----------



## Adversary

Human morality is older than all our current religions. Morality comes from the cause and effect of our actions. The most obvious forms of morality are written in our genes from the moment we are born. Religion is just there to re-enforce its own (often primitive) morality system.


----------



## ugh1979

No Limit said:


> I believe people who don't have a religion or religious beliefs can determine right from wrong without having to believe in God. How can you draw up right from wrong though if there's no "higher power" you have to answer to? I'm not trying to troll. I just want to know.


Morality precedes religion by at least hundreds of thousands of years. We wouldn't have succeded as a species without it.

Religion took its core morals from pre-existing human culture and tried to sell it back to us as its own invention.

Fortunatley many of us now realise what a sham religion is so can easily dismiss it.


----------



## Droidsteel

You can have morals just as easily without religion as you can with it.

Look at the ten commandments even they are more just common sense rather than some ritualistic laws.


----------



## TobeyJuarez

its just something u know


----------



## Pesten

"...More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason."


----------



## Xenos

Morality is socially useful. It's never _really_ about religion, even when the culture pretends it is. They just use religious terminology to back it up.


----------



## sleepydrone

No Limit said:


> How can you draw up right from wrong though if there's no "higher power" you have to answer to?


This cannot be answered conclusively.
Occams razor is why a deity should not be injected in conclusion to it.

If we did not have morality without a deity we would be either dead or subjugated.
Needless to say neither is a world I would want to live or assume to be in.

Why can a person change it's ethical viewpoints based on personal experience? 
Saying _'god did it'_ is unneccesary and not refutable.

The answer to religious questions is wisdom rather than knowledge.

"Arguments that explain everything, explain nothing."
-Christopher Hitchens


----------



## Blueshine

We are all born social. A genetic inheritance. If someone is violent, steals or other, other people will not feel safe and they take action against this person. In the end, you have a bunch of people who don't want to feel consequences while we generally have better survival chances together. Morals are complicated but very relative and they keep changing. If we followed the morals of the bible we'd still be keeping slaves and marrying rapists with their victims. You do not answer to a higher power, you answer to other people.


----------



## ugh1979

Blueshine said:


> We are all born social. A genetic inheritance. If someone is violent, steals or other, other people will not feel safe and they take action against this person. In the end, you have a bunch of people who don't want to feel consequences while we generally have better survival chances together. Morals are complicated but very relative and they keep changing. If we followed the morals of the bible we'd still be keeping slaves and marrying rapists with their victims. You do not answer to a higher power, you answer to other people.


/\ This.


----------



## Starstuff13

Imagine what it would be like to be an atheist. Lets say you come to your senses and give up your belief in god. Would you start raping and killing everyone that crossed your path? I highly doubt it. If that is true, then please, by all means keep your imaginary friend. I don't feel like getting raped, or killed for that matter.


----------



## vstar401

Starstuff13 said:


> Imagine what it would be like to be an atheist. Lets say you come to your senses and give up your belief in god. Would you start raping and killing everyone that crossed your path? I highly doubt it. If that is true, then please, by all means keep your imaginary friend. I don't feel like getting raped, or killed for that matter.


Norrr.... most of the scientists are atheists and from what i understand, they pillage, plunder and do much much worse stuff ...


----------



## Starstuff13

vstar401 said:


> Norrr.... most of the scientists are atheists and from what i understand, they pillage, plunder and do much much worse stuff ...


What the bloody hell are you talking about? That is so blatantly false that I suspect you're being sarcastic. It's just hard to tell online. If not, you are extremely misinformed.


----------



## PickleNose

No Limit said:


> I believe people who don't have a religion or religious beliefs can determine right from wrong without having to believe in God. How can you draw up right from wrong though if there's no "higher power" you have to answer to? I'm not trying to troll. I just want to know.


I am agnostic.

But....I have come to believe that morality without religion is problematic. For a long time, I didn't see it. Me personally? I trust myself to know right from wrong. The rest of society? That's another matter entirely. There are a lot of people who simply never give it much thought. And frighteningly enough, eventually lose their grasp on right and wrong.

Unfortunately, people who don't believe there are things humans shouldn't be doing start getting creepy ideas before too long.

A person who doesn't believe in an all powerful being who is absolutely righteous eventually starts to ask "Why not?" way too often. And while that doesn't initially sound too scary, I really shudder to think where a completely atheist civilization would end up.


----------



## ugh1979

PickleNose said:


> I am agnostic.
> 
> But....I have come to believe that morality without religion is problematic. For a long time, I didn't see it. Me personally? I trust myself to know right from wrong. The rest of society? That's another matter entirely. There are a lot of people who simply never give it much thought. And frighteningly enough, eventually lose their grasp on right and wrong.
> 
> Unfortunately, people who don't believe there are things humans shouldn't be doing start getting creepy ideas before too long.
> 
> A person who doesn't believe in an all powerful being who is absolutely righteous eventually starts to ask "Why not?" way too often. And while that doesn't initially sound too scary, I really shudder to think where a completely atheist civilization would end up.


If that is the case why do most the safest countries in the world also have high levels of atheism?

There is no evidence to support high levels of atheism equating to more crime.

There will always be some people who will do what they want and level of religiosity makes little to no difference. Modern society uses legislation and law enforcement to try and prevent these people, not idle threats from an archaic book.


----------



## PickleNose

ugh1979 said:


> If that is the case why do most the safest countries in the world also have high levels of atheism?
> 
> There is no evidence to support high levels of atheism equating to more crime.


 That's really not what I said. I wasn't referring to any specific religion, either. China has one of the highest levels of atheism in the world and I don't consider it a safe place to live whether it has a high crime rate or not.

Of course I wouldn't want to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia either.

Frankly, full-blown atheists tend to creep me out with their idealistic, utopian thinking. The idea that man can be perfect is a frightening religion when someone latches onto it and ignores reality. This is as scary as the idea that there is a God who hates homosexuality, for example.


----------



## jc22

Morality and the laws of the land are mainly concerned with humans, so they should be thought up by humans in reasoned debate and voting system. We get our inner morality from within ourselves and good upbringing, and if religious people are credulous of atheists goodness, maybe that says more about them and how they would react if they lost their faith.

Questioning and asking "what if" is extremely important, I don't understand what would bad would happen with an atheist society. Look at UK, the actual religious people here is tiny, it's just we are all christened and put on the record as Christians


----------



## ryobi

Why are there social animals like humans, and how come they can co-exist with one another? Because the animals that are social animals have a better chance of survival in a group than they do on their own and animals that don't follow the, "rules" can't function whithin the group and hence they won't get the benifits they would get being in the group. Evolution.


----------



## Givenupongod

No Limit said:


> I believe people who don't have a religion or religious beliefs can determine right from wrong without having to believe in God. How can you draw up right from wrong though if there's no "higher power" you have to answer to? I'm not trying to troll. I just want to know.


It's possible, it's just not probable. Morality has nothing to do with religion. All tribes of people have moral codes, even if they don't match our own. All tribes of people have societal taboos against the basics--murder, adultery, promiscuity, etc. I saw a documentary about one Brazilian tribe's moral code concerning getting drunk.

Atheists try to say morals are something specific to christianity that's imposed on others. That's ridiculous. Christians themselves try to claim they have a corner on the moral market, like jews and muslims are running naked in the streets eating babies. It's bs.

All religions have their extremists and failures. Of the three main faiths above, morality is actually weakest among christians, particularly those of protestant sects, because of their skewed doctrines regarding the 'new covenant.' Grace without works. They believe that all they have to do is go to church, recite an incantation, and then they're 'saved' and can do as they please.


----------



## Givenupongod

Needing to believe in a higher power is hard-wired into our dna. We pop out of the womb looking for an orb to rub. It would seem we need to believe in a higher power in order to compel us to decency, but no particular religion guarantees that or has a monopoly on that. Even if it's pixies, faeries, and unicorns, we have to believe in something or we unravel. 

William Durant "could think of no moral code that survived the death of its gods, and no society that survived the death of its moral code." 

Crawl inside that statement. If you're reading it carefully, it should fill you with terror and dread. Every single day is a horror to me, and this is why. One of the muslim prophecies of the apocalypse (all religions have a list) is "the rise of a nation whose people copulate in public like camels." That's us.


----------



## diamondheart89

Morality has more to do with social acceptance than religion.


----------



## ugh1979

PickleNose said:


> That's really not what I said. I wasn't referring to any specific religion, either. China has one of the highest levels of atheism in the world and I don't consider it a safe place to live whether it has a high crime rate or not.


Communist developing countries are an obvious exception as atheism was by force rather than by choice. I was of course referring to the numerous highly developed democratic countries which evolved high levels of atheism naturally.



> Frankly, full-blown atheists tend to creep me out with their idealistic, utopian thinking. The idea that man can be perfect is a frightening religion when someone latches onto it and ignores reality. This is as scary as the idea that there is a God who hates homosexuality, for example.


What does atheism have to do with idealistic utopian thinking? Atheism is only a disbelief in a god or gods.

I totally agree with you that idealistic thinking still needs to be grounded in reality. We are but smart apes and have many traits which prevent utopia now and possibly ever. The same goes for belief in the supposed utopia of heaven. It's just not grounded in reality.


----------



## ugh1979

jc22 said:


> Morality and the laws of the land are mainly concerned with humans, so they should be thought up by humans in reasoned debate and voting system. We get our inner morality from within ourselves and good upbringing, and if religious people are credulous of atheists goodness, maybe that says more about them and how they would react if they lost their faith.
> 
> Questioning and asking "what if" is extremely important, I don't understand what would bad would happen with an atheist society. Look at UK, the actual religious people here is tiny, it's just we are all christened and put on the record as Christians


Christenings are on the way out as more and more people don't bother due to it's irrelevance or choose to have naming ceremonies instead. In this day and age it's often pressure from older relatives to have Christenings since they usually say it's the 'right' thing to do. (I personally equate it to a form of child abuse but that's a a debate for another day)

It's obviously the same with weddings. A generation ago almost everyone got married in a church but now two thirds don't. Tradition is the last bastion of religion in the UK and it's steadily being seriously undermined.


----------



## ugh1979

Givenupongod said:


> Needing to believe in a higher power is hard-wired into our dna. We pop out of the womb looking for an orb to rub. It would seem we need to believe in a higher power in order to compel us to decency


To the contrary, it seems we don't need to believe in a higher power in order to compel us to decency. The vast majority of atheists are decent.



> Even if it's pixies, faeries, and unicorns, we have to believe in something or we unravel.


Absolute nonsense. Believing in supernatural crap is arguably harmful to society. It's certainly not the hallmark of the great modern developed societies many of us now live in.

The Enlightenment (age of reason) paved the way for our current high standard of living. Not regression in to the supernatural world of our ancestors.



> William Durant "could think of no moral code that survived the death of its gods, and no society that survived the death of its moral code."
> 
> Crawl inside that statement. If you're reading it carefully, it should fill you with terror and dread. Every single day is a horror to me, and this is why. One of the muslim prophecies of the apocalypse (all religions have a list) is "the rise of a nation whose people copulate in public like camels." That's us.


What a fallacious quote! :roll

Thousands of gods have been created by man and then consigned to history with the rise and fall of civilisations over the millennia but core humanistic morality has always been present and largely abided by. We wouldn't be here if it didn't.


----------



## fredbloggs02

diamondheart89 said:


> Morality has more to do with social acceptance than religion.


Though acceptance would be closed to people who considered pecking the same as talking, finding something in others distinct from gossip. I believe such people are possible. The way things are isn't necessarily what is in accordance with people as they are deep down and the way things are has in some sense come to be from what has been. What has been is Christianity.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> I don't buy that getting on with people serves all of us.


It serves us all as a group, as it helps the vast majority of people in the group. We wouldn't prosper as a species without it.

If we were all just out for ourselves then we would have become extinct long ago. A harmonious society is key to our continued existence and welfare.

Edit: I see you changed your post. Why not try and decide what you want to say before pressing reply? You do this so much. It's lame. It's not like you are being rushed to reply. :roll


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> Though acceptance would be closed to people who considered pecking the same as talking, finding something in others the same as gossip. I believe such people are possible. The way things are isn't necessarily what is in accordance with people as they are deep down and the way things are has in some sense come to be from what has been. What has been is Christianity.


And before Christianity came lots of other religions with very similar moral codes, and before them would have been lots of isolated societies with very similar moral codes, so what's your point?


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> It serves us all as a group, as it helps the vast majority of people in the group. We wouldn't prosper as a species without it.
> 
> If we were all just out for ourselves then we would have become extinct long ago. A harmonious society is key to our continued existence and welfare.
> 
> Edit: I see you changed your post. Why not try and decide what you want to say before pressing reply? You do this so much. It's lame. It's not like you are being rushed to reply. :roll


...To an egoist, "we" doesn't exist so it wouldn't matter to him if the human survived or not, so long as he did in whichever form he took. Morality is presupposed in your notion of extinction. I'm not going to let you or any other atheist get away with the idea that religion played no part in notions like that, surely you can see it emphasizes the human.


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> And before Christianity came lots of other religions with very similar moral codes, and before them would have been lots of isolated societies with very similar moral codes, so what's your point?


That you don't know what harmony is and you don't care.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> ...To an egoist, "we" doesn't exist so it wouldn't matter to him if the human survived or not, so long as he did.


The 'we' is obviously our species, so the egoist would have to be trying to deny the existence of himself. :lol



> Morality is presupposed in your notion of extinction. I'm not going to let you or any other atheist get away with the idea that religion played no part in notions like that.


I've never said religion has played no part in shaping morality as we know it today. Of course it did (sometimes in awful ways, like with regards to slavery, misogyny and homophobia). My point is that it's not the source of core human morality. Core human morality evolved naturally long long before the emergence of religion. Religious morality is just a [email protected] hijack of human morality.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> That you don't know what harmony is and you don't care.


Really?

You think I don't care that we live in a society that has formed in a way that allows us to live comfortably and safely?

Or is that not a product of harmonious living?


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> Really?
> 
> You think I don't care that we live in a society that has formed in a way that allows us to live comfortably and safely?
> 
> Or is that not a product of harmonious living?


No more so than the thousands of other species of animals and past cultures that ate each other. Your view of "safety" and "harmony" has not been shared by every culture, as you've conceded; so no, you have no more right to know harmony or safety than animals who tore their each other to shreds, than parents who eat their children or men who throw women from mountains for watching the Olympics- no right- only the authority of present circumstances in your favour... When you say harmony, what you mean is that this is what you are comfortable with, and that's not what I'm interested in. If I were intrested in harmony it would interest me in the highest sense, I wouldn't just presume this were the best of all possible worlds. And why should our present notions of safety or harmony end here?...Those animals I suspect are permitted sweeter harmony from the blood of a carcass than any who operate under societal restrictions...Why should all life remain sacred unless under the eyes of God? We could be that once more- perhaps would be- if not for our Christian heritage.

If the "human" became dust once more, given enough time, perhaps a more capable species hungry for each other and for the secrets of the cosmos would arise from it's dust, who would laugh at present notions of harmony and safety. Without God there would be no Darwin and no game theory either I suspect.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> No more so than the thousands of other species of animals and past cultures that ate each other.
> Your view of "safety" and "harmony" has not been shared by every culture, as you've conceded; so no, you have no more right to know harmony or safety than animals who tore a to shreds, than parents who eat their children or men who throw women from mountains for watching the Olympics- no right- only the authority of present circumstances in your favour... When you say harmony, what you mean is that this is what you are comfortable with, and that's not what I'm interested in. If I were intrested in harmony it would interest me in the highest sense, I wouldn't just presume this were the best of all possible worlds. And why should our present notions of safety or harmony end here?...Those animals I suspect are permitted sweeter harmony from the blood of a carcass than any who operate under societal restrictions...


All I meant by a more harmonious society is one that has properties which leads to more prosperity and higher safety and welfare. It's unarguable we live in a more harmonious society than our ancestors in respect to those properties. Mankind on the whole has never had it so good.

I didn't say we were at the peak of development and lived in absolute utopia. There is still much to develop and lots more harmony to achieve.



> Why should all life remain sacred unless under the eyes of God? We could be that once more- perhaps would be- if not for our Christian heritage.


I have no idea what you are trying to say there.



> If the "human" became dust once more, given enough time, perhaps a more capable species hungry for each other and for the secrets of the cosmos would arise from it's dust, who would laugh at present notions of harmony and safety.


It's true mankind could become extinct and another species evolve to fill the niche. That species could eventually exceed mankind's current levels of safety and harmony. I'm not really sure what that has to do with this debate though.



> Without God there would be no Darwin and no game theory either I suspect.


Why not?


----------



## diamondheart89

fredbloggs02 said:


> Though acceptance would be closed to people who considered pecking the same as talking, finding something in others the same as gossip. I believe such people are possible. The way things are isn't necessarily what is in accordance with people as they are deep down and the way things are has in some sense come to be from what has been. What has been is Christianity.


Christianity is late to the game and offers nothing newer than a thousand other similar religions. There are better ways out there, if you must be a follower. To suggest that our morality comes from a religionthatscopied from the ones before it almost exactly, is silly.


----------



## jc22

Have you guys read Sam Harris the moral landscape it's a good book. He creates a science of morality, which I was a bit credulous about, but it's actually a really good book


----------



## ugh1979

diamondheart89 said:


> Christianity is late to the game and offers nothing newer than a thousand other similar religions. There are better ways out there, if you must be a follower. To suggest that our morality comes from a religionthatscopied from the ones before it almost exactly, is silly.


Indeed. Claiming the source of morality comes from Christianity is actually very arrogant, short sighted, naive and ignorant.


----------



## jc22

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed. Claiming the source of morality comes from Christianity is actually very arrogant, short sighted, naive and ignorant.


Yeh true. Look at all the awesome stuff ancient Greeks


----------



## wordscancutyoulikeglass

I am moral only because if I'm not, there's serious consequences. And even if there wasn't, I think I would be moral anyways only because reducing immorality is the way to stop chaos.


----------



## Givenupongod

ugh1979 said:


> To the contrary, it seems we don't need to believe in a higher power in order to compel us to decency. The vast majority of atheists are decent.
> 
> Absolute nonsense. Believing in supernatural crap is arguably harmful to society. It's certainly not the hallmark of the great modern developed societies many of us now live in.
> 
> The Enlightenment (age of reason) paved the way for our current high standard of living. Not regression in to the supernatural world of our ancestors.
> 
> What a fallacious quote! :roll
> 
> Thousands of gods have been created by man and then consigned to history with the rise and fall of civilisations over the millennia but core humanistic morality has always been present and largely abided by. We wouldn't be here if it didn't.


Sounds like I struck a nerve. That's always the case when someone can't seem to argue their counter points without being derisive and snide.

And no, the vast majority of atheists are not decent--the vast majority see nothing wrong with porn all over the TV or getting drunk and stoned around or even with their kids. See, if you don't have a moral compass, then there's no such thing as moral or immoral--it becomes what you say it is. That way, you can call yourself what you want.

If you make killing others legal, then by amazing coincidence, the incidence of murders goes waaaaaaaaaaaaay down. That's because killing is no longer considered murder or illegal. If deviance isn't considered immoral, then by amazing coincidence, those who engage in deviance are moral, decent people, because nobody around them can tell right from wrong.


----------



## ugh1979

Givenupongod said:


> Sounds like I struck a nerve. That's always the case when someone can't seem to argue their counter points without being derisive and snide.


That's a ridiculous conclusion to make but in this case I have no problem dealing you the contempt you deserve.



> And no, the vast majority of atheists are not decent--the vast majority see nothing wrong with porn all over the TV or getting drunk and stoned around or even with their kids. See, if you don't have a moral compass, then there's no such thing as moral or immoral--it becomes what you say it is. That way, you can call yourself what you want.


You lack a grasp of reality.

I can assure you porn out with its proper place and getting kids drunk or stoned is *not *what the vast majority of atheists call 'decent'!

You are clearly confusing liberalism with immorality.

Are you really that ignorant of how modern society functions in that you think no one can have a moral compass without religion? If that was the case then why do we live in times of record levels of atheism yet also lowest ever levels of crime?



> If you make killing others legal, then by amazing coincidence, the incidence of murders goes waaaaaaaaaaaaay down. That's because killing is no longer considered murder or illegal. If deviance isn't considered immoral, then by amazing coincidence, those who engage in deviance are moral, decent people, because nobody around them can tell right from wrong.


What a confused argument. :lol

I'll try and decrepit it best I can, in that you seem to think deviance and immorality are clear cut and universal. In actual fact both are often highly subjective.


----------



## Givenupongod

ugh1979 said:


> That's a ridiculous conclusion to make but in this case I have no problem dealing you the contempt you deserve.
> 
> You lack a grasp of reality.
> 
> I can assure you porn out with its proper place and getting kids drunk or stoned is *not *what the vast majority of atheists call 'decent'!
> 
> You are clearly confusing liberalism with immorality.
> 
> Are you really that ignorant of how modern society functions in that you think no one can have a moral compass without religion? If that was the case then why do we live in times of record levels of atheism yet also lowest ever levels of crime?
> 
> What a confused argument. :lol
> 
> I'll try and decrepit it best I can, in that you seem to think deviance and immorality are clear cut and universal. In actual fact both are often highly subjective.


Thank you for totally bashing me over the head with your addled opinions. Move along. Nothing more to see here. Just another nitwit eye-roller.


----------



## ugh1979

Givenupongod said:


> Thank you for totally bashing me over the head with your addled opinions. Move along. Nothing more to see here. Just another nitwit eye-roller.


So says the self confessed misogynist. :lol

What are the odds you hate 'n*****s' and '****' as well? :blank


----------



## The Sleeping Dragon

Givenupongod said:


> And no, the vast majority of atheists are not decent--the vast majority see nothing wrong with porn all over the TV or getting drunk and stoned around or even with their kids. See, if you don't have a moral compass, then there's no such thing as moral or immoral--it becomes what you say it is. That way, you can call yourself what you want.


Where do you get your information from? I assume not from polling this 'vast majority' of atheists. How many atheists do you know personally?


----------



## jc22

There's so many atheists, especially in developed countries (minus USA), there's more of them than the religious. These are not societies where most are bad people. Relative to the rest of the world, they are the opposite


----------



## Starstuff13

Givenupongod said:


> Needing to believe in a higher power is hard-wired into our dna. We pop out of the womb looking for an orb to rub. It would seem we need to believe in a higher power in order to compel us to decency, but no particular religion guarantees that or has a monopoly on that. Even if it's pixies, faeries, and unicorns, we have to believe in something or we unravel.
> 
> William Durant "could think of no moral code that survived the death of its gods, and no society that survived the death of its moral code."
> 
> Crawl inside that statement. If you're reading it carefully, it should fill you with terror and dread. Every single day is a horror to me, and this is why. One of the muslim prophecies of the apocalypse (all religions have a list) is "the rise of a nation whose people copulate in public like camels." That's us.


Wow am I really the first to notice this ridiculous statement? We all have to believe in some sort of faith based malarkey or we will unravel? SPEAK FOR YOURSELF BUDDY!!! It may be true that there are some people that pretty much have to believe in a higher power in order to get through the day, but that absurd rule does not, I repeat, DOES NOT apply to everybody. I don't think Einstein was unraveled by his non-belief in Jesus or unicorns. He lived a pretty good life and contributed quite a bit. Wouldn't you say? Most atheists value their skepticism and reason very much. This, not believing in a higher power, is hard-wired in our dna. An atheist having faith in something in which there is no evidence for would make us feel like frauds. We don't like contradicting our values. Some atheists would unravel, but those are the atheists who have a problem with god, and stopped believing solely because they feel like god hates them or something, not due to honest skepticism.


----------



## Noca

ignore the terrible music added to the video


----------



## jc22

When I think about it, whilst religious people are asking silly questions like, "how do you really know that raping someone is objectively wrong without a supreme being?" Society and democracy have proven that this is unnecessary by using applied ethics and implementing are fairly advanced moral legal system. (Compared to that which came before it)


----------



## Noca

jc22 said:


> When I think about it, whilst religious people are asking silly questions like, "how do you really know that raping someone is objectively wrong without a supreme being?" Society and democracy have proven that this is unnecessary by using applied ethics and implementing are fairly advanced moral legal system. (Compared to that which came before it)


And considering the religious people were supposed to have known the "truth" since the beginning!


----------



## The Sleeping Dragon

If morality stems from religion than why is in christian religion no commandment, to name a few, against:

- Rape
- Slavery
- Child abuse


----------



## ugh1979

The Sleeping Dragon said:


> If morality stems from religion than why is in christian religion no commandment, to name a few, against:
> 
> - Rape
> - Slavery
> - Child abuse


Because the many Christian misogynists/racists/peadophiles didn't want there to be?


----------



## Xtimes9

PickleNose said:


> That's really not what I said. I wasn't referring to any specific religion, either. China has one of the highest levels of atheism in the world and I don't consider it a safe place to live whether it has a high crime rate or not.
> 
> Of course I wouldn't want to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia either.
> 
> Frankly, full-blown atheists tend to creep me out with their idealistic, utopian thinking. The idea that man can be perfect is a frightening religion when someone latches onto it and ignores reality. This is as scary as the idea that there is a God who hates homosexuality, for example.


China has forced atheism, forced anything will have bad results. Just look at places like Sweden or Iceland, very safe countries to live in.


----------



## olschool

You dont need any religion or book to know right from wrong. But i do believe religion is needed to keep the nutcases in line. Like all of the criminals who went to jail an "found god" and therefore they wont hurt anyone anymore.


----------



## Foh_Teej

Noca said:


> ignore the terrible music added to the video


you know damn well no xtian will watch that in its entirety lol. However, I'd like you all to prove me wrong.


----------



## Blueshine

Atheism has nothing to do with communism or any other ideologies. Anti-religion is a whole other deal.
Religion is man-made. Ergo we create our own morals and they are subject to change. Animals have no religion and yet they have morals. Morals stem from our evolutionary past.

Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries." http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

There are so many sources, statistics and studies that explain morality and especially how religion does NOT help you make moral decisions. Start reading.


----------



## ugh1979

Blueshine said:


> Atheism has nothing to do with communism or any other ideologies. Anti-religion is a whole other deal.
> Religion is man-made. Ergo we create our own morals and they are subject to change. Animals have no religion and yet they have morals. Morals stem from our evolutionary past.
> 
> Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries." http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion
> 
> There are so many sources, statistics and studies that explain morality and especially how religion does NOT help you make moral decisions. Start reading.


Well said and good link to hard evidence.


----------



## hoddesdon

The Sleeping Dragon said:


> If morality stems from religion than why is in christian religion no commandment, to name a few, against:
> 
> - Rape
> - Slavery
> - Child abuse


Rubbish.

See Deuteronomy 22:25 for rape.

See Exodus 21:16 for slavery:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death"

See Luke 17:2 for child abuse:

"It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."


----------



## One Man Wolfpack

hoddesdon said:


> See Exodus 21:16 for slavery:
> 
> "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death"


Exodus 21:20-21

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."


----------



## Rich19

I have three answers lol

1:You can't, morality is just a subjective opinion making every view equally valid in the grand scheme of things as none is backed by real evidence.

2: in a perfect world the majority impose a moral code on the society they live in.

3 in our world the ruleing government decide, based on their own opion and that of what they think the genral public want althogh this can be manipulated i.e media


----------



## neen

This can be said simply I believe. Immoral is anything that hurts another human being. Specific details are used to decide the weight of immoral behaviour. There is no need for God since every man is his own god. (millions of years of human brain evolution is enough right  ) But this is just one small Mans opinion so...


----------



## The Sleeping Dragon

hoddesdon said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> See Deuteronomy 22:25 for rape.
> 
> See Exodus 21:16 for slavery:
> 
> "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death"
> 
> See Luke 17:2 for child abuse:
> 
> "It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."


Than why didn't god made them into official commandments like the ten we know?


----------



## millenniumman75

BeyondOsiris said:


> It's just something that's inherently obvious.


 "Inherently" obvious to whom?


----------



## 87wayz

Teaching morality through religion is the most dangerous thing a parent could do. God is God because he is not human - so no matter how much you tell a kid that God is "in" them, God is still external, otherwise you wouldn't need a book to worship him, you could just pray to yourself

So what happens when the child sees things that make him doubt the absolute goodness of God? It can potentially compromise the whole structure on which the childs morals are built.

Better to teach the logic of morals than the metaphysical punishment immorality. What happens when a child decides that the punishment must not be real because he doesnt see bad people get punished? What happens when the dope man rides down the street in a tinted up 'lac with a fine ***** in the passenger seat - while a kids mother is working and praying hard yet the lights are shut off?


----------



## ugh1979

One Man Wolfpack said:


> Exodus 21:20-21
> 
> "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."


Good counter quote. It seems Christians love to cherry pick while trying to sweep counter points from their _own _scripture under the carpet.

Who are they trying to fool other than themselves? :?


----------



## hoddesdon

The Sleeping Dragon said:


> Than why didn't god made them into official commandments like the ten we know?


Why does the sun rise in the east?


----------



## ugh1979

The Sleeping Dragon said:


> Than why didn't god made them into official commandments like the ten we know?


Because they are based on numerous older religions commandments which Christianity just cherry picked over time.

Christianity is one of the biggest mongrel religions ever, if not _the _biggest. There is almost nothing pure about it. It's primarily made up of readapated or blatantly copied elements of previous religions.

It's like a collage of theistic beleifs and myths spanning the last 6,000 odd years.


----------



## bsd3355

It should be common sense that people do not get their morals from the bible or else everyone would be stoning each other to death according the the bible....... ok, ok... maybe not stoning exactly but death by some other means at least  the bible is far from what we people should call moral


----------



## soupbasket

hoddesdon said:


> Why does the sun rise in the east?


Really?


----------



## One Man Banned

Yes, morality is actually a part of evolutionary psychology/biology. Those who went against the grain (i.e stole food from the group or didn't share) would be ostracized and thus have less chance of survival, if any at all. Others would see this and continue to comply with their 'society'.


----------



## The Sleeping Dragon

ugh1979 said:


> Because they are based on numerous older religions commandments which Christianity just cherry picked over time.
> 
> Christianity is one of the biggest mongrel religions ever, if not _the _biggest. There is almost nothing pure about it. It's primarily made up of readapated or blatantly copied elements of previous religions.
> 
> It's like a collage of theistic beleifs and myths spanning the last 6,000 odd years.


I know. The question was for hoddesdon. I guess my reply wasn't really necessary anyway. One Man Wolfpack's quote hits the nail. I should read the bible a bit again, it's good for making arguments against it.


----------



## marund

Being a decent person is in your own interest because it improves your life and relationships. You cant fake your way around that. I don't expect people to be perfect though just not destructive. People aren't perfect i dont think expecting perfection is morally reasonable but thats me.


----------



## DEO

Just live by the Golden Rule: "Do unto others" or just treat others as you would like others to treat you. Live by that and you won't go far wrong (unless you're a masochist)


----------



## Ramondo

Givenupongod said:


> And no, the vast majority of atheists are not decent--the vast majority see nothing wrong with porn all over the TV or getting drunk and stoned around or even with their kids.


Really? Who was it that went to a wedding and, after all the alcohol was gone, turned water into wine so the guests could keep on intoxicating themselves?

Can you cite the research that shows that atheists "see nothing wrong with porn all over the TV"? Really, I'm interested. I didn't know atheists felt that way.


----------



## ugh1979

Ramondo said:


> Can you cite the research that shows that atheists "see nothing wrong with porn all over the TV"? Really, I'm interested. I didn't know atheists felt that way.


He can't, he's just making false sweeping statements based on his own distorted views.


----------



## ROYALwithCHEESE

You cannot learn morals, especially when you become an adult.
One persons moral view will differ from another's, as shown when you read through this thread.
You would need a long discussion and list making to go through what everyone's default moral set is before anyone starts arguing athiesm vs religion.
You can pick up a newspaper and read of horrible things done by people of all faiths and that is your proof that ones belief about existance has nothing to do with how good a human being they are.


----------



## Noca

hoddesdon said:


> why does the sun rise in the east?


lolll


----------



## whattothink

hoddesdon said:


> Why does the sun rise in the east?


My take is that the motivation that spawns the question "why" isn't relevant.

Since the origins of man can be logically followed to have been born from randomness, and because "why" is only a question man or life asks, the question seems absurd. "Why" is by all accounts not inherent in the way the universe works. The universe seems to be indifferent and random, without purpose or intention. The only thing the universe appears to indicate is "is" and nothing more. We are because we are. Purpose is not a requirement, it's an absurd human invention that serves to get us through our lives.


----------



## Billius

Morals are just a farce people use to justify tormenting them-selfs and those around them. Many people do it, religion and atheism are little more than means to sad sad ends


----------



## fawn2793

To me it's all about decisions, being a good human being doesn't come from some book that makes you fear a higher power who can damn you to eternal torture or give you eternal happiness based on your actions while you're in the flesh... I mean it's not like he's also a forgiving god therefore hell should not exist... but anyway, sure you could be a menace to the society you liver in and risk your freedom, teach your children the same thing and get absolutely no where... or you could live your life doing what makes you happy... if doing wrong is what makes you happy... then be prepared for the consequences. Regardless of why we're here, have feelings, emotions, a conscience... it all comes down to living with the choices you make and dare not blame anyone else, even if you had two of the most dysfunctional parents alive... you still have a choice to follow their lame example, or be what you know is better... no one needs religion to guide them, you were born with the capabilities to be productive for yourself if no one else...


----------



## realitycheck001

*Morality exists without "god" or "God"*

I read the original question and a followup about the original rules being laid out in the bible. I'm going to address both.

Consider I'm myopically writing responses that could cover the planet and societies but I'm being selective to not create a novel.

1. I don't consider the following moral: the crusades, the Spanish inquisitition, fast forward to now - in the Catholic vein - having affairs
and being absolved by them and then having more and being absolved.
If you look at what's happening in Congress being influenced by lobbyists, there's nothing moral about that look at where people without money or influence are - losing what we have.
1a. What's moral about going into other countries and destroying them?
1b. What exactly was moral about McCarthyism?
2. What's moral about killing under the name of any god/God? 
3. Any social structure can lay out morals. Is it right or wrong? It's neither.

Religion and their "moral values" is set up to control. It's established for a lot of reasons under control. Catholicism and Christianity in our country get a lot for paying nothing. They're a business under "religion."

As an agnostic (let me be clear - prove to me something higher exists and I'll believe it). Faith is not an acceptable answer to me. It's not proof.

* * * *
Making the statement the original rules were established in the Bible (assuming meaning the ten commandments for starters) is incorrect. As every society was created, rules of governance evolved. The rules had nothing to do with the Bible or bible. There are way too many examples of this bc to even get into it.

* * * *
As an agnostic with aetheistic leanings, I accept religions but they're annoying. That sounds contradictory but is not. I've been to many churches, my best friend is a hypocritical Catholic. I'm the one who ensures we hold hands prior to eating, so he can pray and give thanks. In a community in which I lived in NY, there were a lot of Hassidics and a lot of Hassidic pedophiles (reported ... and while I'm at it look at the priests who are pedophiles) AND a lot of thieves taking advantage of the economic system and making tons of money off people's backs because the people didn't have the money to fight and win.
* * * *

I have my self-created morals and abide by them. I don't look to religion to guide my life. I look within. I see the way I live as being "cleaner" than many of those who live by the bible/Bible which is a book written carefully by man that has been interpreted and rewritten thousands of times. It's tailored to obtain what the writers wanted from people and the reality - look at it before you get annoyed, it's just a book.


----------



## Uncomfortably Diurnal

DEO said:


> Just live by the Golden Rule: "Do unto others" or just treat others as you would like others to treat you. Live by that and you won't go far wrong (*unless you're a masochist*)


Which is why I hate that it's called the "Golden" Rule. It's Silver at best. :lol


----------



## tk123

This relevant pic was on the front page of reddit earlier today:


----------



## The Sleeping Dragon

tk123 said:


> This relevant pic was on the front page of reddit earlier today:


I love it.


----------



## ryobi

So True... I watched the 700 club the other day where Pat Roberts asked people to go into debt to give tidings and then he promised them god will reward them for their sacrifice


----------



## Implicate

I am good for goodness sake, not because of fear or intimidation pertaining to my salvation or mortality.


----------



## fredbloggs02

Bill Gates is gifted something like sixty five billion dollars every year. He donates that much to charity so he can show his face in public and no one stones his head open. He is a louse. If you dropped a hundred dollar note in the street, the second it took him to pick it up he would have wasted his time.... Of course people like him can afford to appear superficially moral. He obviously feels entitled in some measure or he would have given a far greater ratio of his earnings to charity. If he is "good" I spit in the face of good and stone their heads open.

The atheists today aren't Nihilists. The greater measure of populist atheist morality is pig noises, pig benevolence measurable in swill. Some goodness is so effectually self-conscious, so content, so small it wounds and makes really moral people ashamed on behalf of those offering it, they who know what power it consolidates, what it justifies elsewhere, what they are capable of in contrast to a louse permitted to raise it's head to brush their face with it's goodness. That such people are permitted to speak on my behalf and aren't considered nature's abortions with their lecherous innovations is all the evidence I need that this society has been debased.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> Bill Gates is gifted something like sixty five billion dollars every year. He donates that much to charity so he can show his face in public and they don't stone his head open. He is a louse. If you dropped a hundred dollar note in the street, the second it took him to pick it up, he would have earned more in that second.... Of course people like him can afford to be moral. He obviously feels entitled in some measure or he would have given a far greater ratio of his earnings to charity. he is a louse. Money doubles as the holy spirit in our age.


He's a hell of a lot more generous than most other billionaires. Many of who are religious. :roll

If Bill Gates is a "louse", what are they?



> The atheists today aren't Nihilists.. People who aren't provided for by society, people starving to death or spiritually degenerated by it...those are the interesting cases. They will tell you who is moral and who isn't, whether the will to life weighs heavier than atrocities. Populist atheist morality is pig noises. When four men in a boat are starving after nine days without food, judging the majority judging from what I hear, the majority of the atheists today would do a cost benefit analysis and eat through themselves one by one... I'm not judging them, I'm simply saying the sixth commandment would stand in a good Christian. They would starve to death.


What a load of rubbish. Everyone is moral to different extents and how far they will extend it has no correlation with whether they believe in an invisible sky daddy or not.

Some people are more moral/helpful/charitable/altruistic than others, and their person belief about the supernatural means nothing.


----------



## ugh1979

I'm glad you deleted your last post fredbloggs02. I read it and laughed at how personal you were taking it for some reason. :lol I was saying nothing about your personal cryptic beliefs.


----------



## brandonmag

Just because someone claims they are something doesn't necessarily make it true :lol


----------



## ugh1979

brandonmag said:


> Just because someone claims they are something doesn't necessarily make it true :lol


Very true.


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> I'm glad you deleted your last post fredbloggs02. I read it and laughed at how personal you were taking it for some reason. :lol I was saying nothing about your personal cryptic beliefs.


psshhh... "sky daddy". Commonplace inanities like that address everything.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> psshhh... "sky daddy". Commonplace inanities like that address everything.


You might not like the term but it's what many theists essentially believe.


----------



## the collector

Adversary said:


> Human morality is older than all our current religions. Morality comes from the cause and effect of our actions. The most obvious forms of morality are written in our genes from the moment we are born. Religion is just there to re-enforce its own (often primitive) morality system.


I like aphex twin too


----------



## the collector

TristanS said:


> Same way all the religious people did - from the norms and values of society. All the important rules in the Bible were the laws of society first.


Nah..the word of God existed Waaay b4 humans.


----------



## ugh1979

the collector said:


> Nah..the word of God existed Waaay b4 humans.


What language was it in?


----------



## VicViper

Morality is a subjective concept. Everyone has a personal opinion of what is right or wrong, and very few will agree with each other on all moral stances. It's ethics which are defined by a group or majority belief, things like codes of conduct, or laws intended to protect us.

Example: Someone may decide to kill a man who killed their wife. Different people will have different stances on if that is morally justified or not, but by the majority of the worlds laws, ethically, that would be wrong.

I guess what I'm making a poor example of is an atheist and a person of faith may or may not have similar moral codes, but the person of faith will live under the ethical code of his religion, which the atheist will not.


----------



## The Sleeping Dragon

VicViper said:


> but the person of faith will live under the ethical code of his religion
> .


Not really. Most persons of faith pick and choice what morals they practice.

For example:

Commandment #4:



> "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."


Hello Catholicism.

Also Jesus said:



> Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)


Well. I don't have to explain this right?


----------



## bsd3355

Morals come from people, not the bible


----------



## bsd3355

fredbloggs02 said:


> Bill Gates is gifted something like sixty five billion dollars every year. He donates that much to charity so he can show his face in public and no one stones his head open. He is a louse. If you dropped a hundred dollar note in the street, the second it took him to pick it up he would have wasted his time.... Of course people like him can afford to appear superficially moral. He obviously feels entitled in some measure or he would have given a far greater ratio of his earnings to charity. If he is "good" I spit in the face of good and stone their heads open.
> 
> The atheists today aren't Nihilists. The greater measure of populist atheist morality is pig noises, pig benevolence measurable in swill. Some goodness is so effectually self-conscious, so content, so small it wounds and makes really moral people ashamed on behalf of those offering it, they who know what power it consolidates, what it justifies elsewhere, what they are capable of in contrast to a louse permitted to raise it's head to brush their face with it's goodness. That such people are permitted to speak on my behalf and aren't considered nature's abortions with their lecherous innovations is all the evidence I need that this society has been debased.


Wth are you talking about (as usual)?

A louse? You accuse someone of such things but you dont know him. What have you contributed to society lately? If anything you're the "louse". Just because he has more money than everyone else subjects him to such nasty words? I'd say more but i dont want to get another warning in my pms.... Big words and crafty sentences doesnt make you right btw ugh


----------



## sweetluvgurl

Personally, I'm not very religious, but I do have morals. That's what bugs me is it feels like guys are either piggish a lot and have no morals, or they're religious freaks who wanna throw the Bible at you and burn a cross into your forehead if you're not a Bible thumper. I always wonder why it seems a lot of people can't seem to have good morals in different areas (as far as with honesty, sex, etc) without being religious.


----------



## ugh1979

sweetluvgurl said:


> Personally, I'm not very religious, but I do have morals. That's what bugs me is it feels like guys are either piggish a lot and have no morals, or they're religious freaks who wanna throw the Bible at you and burn a cross into your forehead if you're not a Bible thumper. I always wonder why it seems a lot of people can't seem to have good morals in different areas (as far as with honesty, sex, etc) without being religious.


You sound like you have unfortunately encountered the two opposite ends of the male spectrum too often. The majority are spread across the middle ground.


----------



## hoddesdon

Without morality there would be hell.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Without morality there would be hell.


Just as well there will never be no morality then.


----------



## Helloy

..and I believe that you can believe in God without being religious. I think religions drive people away from faith, actually. I grew up going to Catholic mass where I saw these weird old dudes dressed up in robes, some of which like children a little too much. I say don't let these clowns drive you away from faith. They don't even believe what they are telling you themselves. A good per centage are, in fact, atheists themselves. This is how they are able to do what they do. Collect money and preach. 
Interestingly, I had an aunt, who the rest of the family labelled as a holy roller because she really did believe. Those who called her that went to church on Sundays which was the only time they acknowledged their maker, but for what? 
What all the great religions have in common is right. Be nice, don't kill people or steal et al. What they disagree on is all wrong. "Jesus is the answer." "No. Mohammed is." Lets kill each other over those trivial discrepancies. 
I am monotheist and it works out nicely. Monotheism is not a religion. It is just belief in one God. 
Don't let religions drive you away from faith. You know there is much more to your existence than plumbing.


----------



## ugh1979

Helloy said:


> ..and I believe that you can believe in God without being religious. I think religions drive people away from faith, actually. I grew up going to Catholic mass where I saw these weird old dudes dressed up in robes, some of which like children a little too much. I say don't let these clowns drive you away from faith. They don't even believe what they are telling you themselves. A good per centage are, in fact, atheists themselves. This is how they are able to do what they do. Collect money and preach.


You don't think they couldn't just "collect money and preach" if they were theists? It would certainly be a lot easier! Atheist priests etc are the exception, not the norm.



> I am monotheist and it works out nicely. Monotheism is not a religion. It is just belief in one God.


So what do you believe then if you don't subscribe to any religious doctrine? (Other than there is one god)



> You know there is much more to your existence than plumbing.


Actually no, you and no one else knows that. You are just wishing there is based on zero empirical evidence. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

Until evidence is found it's just a fantasy.


----------



## z3xorx1

*Religion always existed*

When one studies history, one fact is clear: that every society, every civilization; every tribe of people and even prehistoric peoples, all had 2 things in common. Sacrifice, and a priesthood: a group of people set aside from the rest to offer up sacrifice. Why? Because before all of the distractions of technological advancement and what not, humans realized that there is a God, or a higher power, or gods. They realized that for some reason they were all desperately in need of this higher power's favor, which is why they constantly offered sacrifice. Religion is the oldest institution of human kind, because it is in our nature to want to know, love and serve God. The reason why we have a sense of right and wrong, and have a CHOICE to follow what is right or wrong, is because we, as human beings are made for God. What is right, is what God wants, and what is wrong, is not what God wants. Animals, don't have this free will, they simply live according to their bodily instincts, and have no thought of wrong or right. We, on the other hand, have immortal souls made for God. But a loving God, would allow us to choose, between serving him, or not; if he forced us to love him, then philosophically that can not be considered love.

Now if sacrifice is the only way to get right with God, than it would be impossible for us to be reconciled with him. Why? because he is ETERNAL, he is infinite, while we, only have a finite amount of time, a finite amount of sacrifices to offer, we would never amount to God. So God had to come down himself to sacrifice himself. Only that could reconcile us with God and make our suffering and sacrifice worth something. Watch the Passion of the Christ.


----------



## ugh1979

z3xorx1 said:


> When one studies history, one fact is clear: that every society, every civilization; every tribe of people and even prehistoric peoples, all had 2 things in common. Sacrifice, and a priesthood: a group of people set aside from the rest to offer up sacrifice. Why? Because before all of the distractions of technological advancement and what not, humans realized that there is a God, or a higher power, or gods. They realized that for some reason they were all desperately in need of this higher power's favor, which is why they constantly offered sacrifice. Religion is the oldest institution of human kind, because it is in our nature to want to know, love and serve God.


Evidence indicates it's far more likely that the reason humans thought that is a god (or far more common, god*s*) is because they had curiosity, imaginations and consciousness, but didn't have any better answers to their questions. We existed in a child like state in many respects. We were keen and capable to learn but only able to speculate answers as laymen until we developed science which answered so many of the questions and puzzles we observed and considered.

We have been filling the gaps which god used to fill for hundreds of years and the "god hole" just keeps getting smaller. That suggests the hole is just a hole in our knowledge and in time it will be completely or almost completely filled. The idea of a god is already redundant for millions as it no longer makes sense. Once upon a time it did, but not post Enlightenment age.



> The reason why we have a sense of right and wrong, and have a CHOICE to follow what is right or wrong, is because we, as human beings are made for God.


Unlikely. There is far better evidence for a sense of right and wrong having evolved as it would have been highly beneficial for our ancestors social groups survival.



> What is right, is what God wants, and what is wrong, is not what God wants.


Surely you can see the fallacy in that statement? :? What is right for one person isn't always right for another. To say there is a set right and wrong for everything is ridiculous and extremely pompous.



> Animals, don't have this free will, they simply live according to their bodily instincts, and have no thought of wrong or right.


You should study natural history. Relatively intelligent animals like dolphins and our cousins the chimps for example show both what we call free will and have a sense of morality, albeit more primitive than ours, which fits with evolution perfectly.



> We, on the other hand, have immortal souls made for God.


You mean you hope we do. You don't actually know and can't prove we do.


----------



## Foh_Teej

z3xorx1 said:


> When one studies history, one fact is clear: that every society, every civilization; every tribe of people and even prehistoric peoples, all had 2 things in common. Sacrifice, and a priesthood: a group of people set aside from the rest to offer up sacrifice. Why? Because before all of the distractions of technological advancement and what not, humans realized that there is a God, or a higher power, or gods. They realized that for some reason they were all desperately in need of this higher power's favor, which is why they constantly offered sacrifice. Religion is the oldest institution of human kind, because it is in our nature to want to know, love and serve God. The reason why we have a sense of right and wrong, and have a CHOICE to follow what is right or wrong, is because we, as human beings are made for God. What is right, is what God wants, and what is wrong, is not what God wants. Animals, don't have this free will, they simply live according to their bodily instincts, and have no thought of wrong or right. We, on the other hand, have immortal souls made for God. But a loving God, would allow us to choose, between serving him, or not; if he forced us to love him, then philosophically that can not be considered love.
> 
> Now if sacrifice is the only way to get right with God, than it would be impossible for us to be reconciled with him. Why? because he is ETERNAL, he is infinite, while we, only have a finite amount of time, a finite amount of sacrifices to offer, we would never amount to God. So God had to come down himself to sacrifice himself. Only that could reconcile us with God and make our suffering and sacrifice worth something. Watch the Passion of the Christ.


This is simply an asinine post. There is simply no evidence WHAT-SO-EVER that your god -or any of the several thousand cataloged deities- actually exist. If you have this evidence, please present it. I've asked numerous times for this evidence and NO theist has yet to provide it. I'm not interested in hearing wishful thinking, arguments from ignorance, or "it's faith." You need to answer this or you will simply be dismissed as delusional.


----------



## emberam22

My mother was Christian before she raised my siblings and I as atheists. She taught us Christian morals without teaching us the Christian traditions. Nowadays Christian teachings are pushed upon atheists, which I don't appreciate, and I think is unethical. I go by my own morals that respect society and treats people respectfully.


----------



## ugh1979

emberam22 said:


> My mother was Christian before she raised my siblings and I as atheists. She taught us Christian morals without teaching us the Christian traditions. Nowadays Christian teachings are pushed upon atheists, which I don't appreciate, and I think is unethical. I go by my own morals that respect society and treats people respectfully.


Indeed, the core Christian morals are just natural human morals, and any other crap is just man made corrupted crap to usually suit a small minded power hungry male "elite".


----------



## The Sum of Awe

I believe it's hard when people have objections on what is ethical and what isn't, but since we as human beings at least have some concept of our own personal idea of what is ethical, we should benefit to the majority.


----------



## Shredder

Read "Bushido The soul of Japan" by Inazo Nitobe. It's just one great example


----------

