No religion would mean no morality

[Night]

Man will remain in line as long as you give him the code and he doesn't have to define it for himself. If he is left on his own, he will inevitably make the worst choices.

In your theoretical universe, that is true. But in reality it never works out that way. If what a person wants to do is OK with their religion, that's great. If not, then they'll do it anyways. They always do.

So in reality, morality seems completely independent of religion...because people do what they want to do, regardless.

[Dave In Canada]

Here's my argument for it. Without any religion we would allow everybody the freedom to choose whatever is right or wrong. Everybody thinks differently and it would be the most difficult task in the world to have any common "moral" ground. Lets take an example,

Mr.A thinks we should not steal from people. He loves torturing animals for recreational purposes. He takes good care of his parents coz he thinks he's returning the favor. He thinks there should be no limit on the number of wives he could have, so he found like-minded women and married seven ladies. One of his children, later grows up and he develops a sexual attraction for his real mother. The mother seems ok with it and one day Mr. A catches them red-handed. Well Mr.A is a nice man and loves freedom for others but think his wife and boy should've behaved. So he kills his boy (don't worry he has 10 other children, so he has plenty and we also get population control in the process), and as punishment beats his wife real bad but spares her life.
(Well everybody in this example was making random moral choices, things which they thought were right given the circumstances.)

Can you control him as an atheist based on moral ground, assuming an absence of criminal law anyway near?

Just explain to me how will you convince 10 different people who have made up their minds to kill, rape, steal, riot, and on and on.
Maybe I'm asking too much...

Just one basic question should be enough
Why should anyone not kill his brother if he gets a greater share of inheritance due to it? (We're assuming religion does not exist.)

Offerer, it is my contention that you are way off the mark. An absence of religion in a society does not mean that people will suddenly run amok raping and pillaging. A system of morality can be philosophical, cultural and religious. We do not need religion to find a common moral ground in our societies. I think it's pretty safe to say that we as humans have the common understanding that raping, murdering and stealing from each other is not beneficial to individuals living in a community or the community as a whole.

The problem that theists such as yourself continue to make with regards to atheism and morals is the misconception that a lack of a belief in a God also means that that you must have a lack in morals. This couldn't be further from the truth.

If you look at this history of mankind it should be very clear to you that cultures whether they are religious or secular define morality by what is considered to be right or wrong. It should also be clear to you that morality just like every other function of society evolves. Morality is a man-made concept, we have our own individual code and we also follow the codes/laws put in place by our society and/or culture. Our moral codes are clearly not handed down from a divine source unless it is your belief that the God of Christianity thought that it was beneficial for society to burn people at the stake for being heretics.

Let's face the facts and look at society today now compared to our past and it is plain to see that we are far less barbaric than our ancestors. Our societies as a whole still have a lot of work to do but it is my contention that our morals today on a group level completely exceed those of ancient societies.

[arX]

What a disturbing mindset that only a religionist could muster.

"If there's no God or no Lawgiver, why does it matter what I do? Why is rape wrong? Why is paedophilia wrong? ... If I can get away with it with no one to stop me, why is wrong?"

That is an actual quote from a head teacher of a religious school here in London.

[Night]

The only difference between laws on earth and religious morals (ten commandments?) is that if you break the law you'll get punished. If you break the commandments you can telepathically ask jesus for forgiveness and nothing will happen.

Laws are MUCH more effective than religious morals.

arX, what a tame argument! I don't think that such a nice discussion between a religious nut and an atheist could ever occur, especially when the religious person became flustered.

[BlackSheep]

Here's my argument for it. Without any religion we would allow everybody the freedom to choose whatever is right or wrong. Everybody thinks differently and it would be the most difficult task in the world to have any common "moral" ground. Lets take an example,

Even with religion, even a single religion many people think differently. Even within that one religion it is hard to find common "moral" ground on many issues.

Mr.A thinks we should not steal from people. He loves torturing animals for recreational purposes. He takes good care of his parents coz he thinks he's returning the favor. He thinks there should be no limit on the number of wives he could have, so he found like-minded women and married seven ladies. One of his children, later grows up and he develops a sexual attraction for his real mother. The mother seems ok with it and one day Mr. A catches them red-handed. Well Mr.A is a nice man and loves freedom for others but think his wife and boy should've behaved. So he kills his boy (don't worry he has 10 other children, so he has plenty and we also get population control in the process), and as punishment beats his wife real bad but spares her life.
(Well everybody in this example was making random moral choices, things which they thought were right given the circumstances.)

Can you control him as an atheist based on moral ground, assuming an absence of criminal law anyway near?

Most moral norms are more cultural than religious, beyond of course morals to do directly with their god(s). Even with that people can differ radically even if the laws seem fairly clear.

Just explain to me how will you convince 10 different people who have made up their minds to kill, rape, steal, riot, and on and on.
Maybe I'm asking too much...

You are asking too much. Many religious people have done these things as well, believing they would likely go to hell for example.

Just one basic question should be enough
Why should anyone not kill his brother if he gets a greater share of inheritance due to it? (We're assuming religion does not exist.)

The only difference between religion existing and not existing in this case is the threat of harm / reward from their god. That is not the reason, by a long shot, they don't do this. They don't do it predominantly because they love their brother.

My kids do not believe in any gods. They are very moral. They strive to understand and accept everyone. They do not do this because of some external threat, they do it because they feel it is right. They do it because it makes the world a nicer place. They do it because they were show that way by their atheist father who is understanding and accepting as opposed to their judgmental theistic mother.

[BlackSheep]

The only difference between laws on earth and religious morals (ten commandments?) is that if you break the law you'll get punished. If you break the commandments you can telepathically ask jesus for forgiveness and nothing will happen.

Laws are MUCH more effective than religious morals.

arX, what a tame argument! I don't think that such a nice discussion between a religious nut and an atheist could ever occur, especially when the religious person became flustered.

I suggest what is even more powerful than either s simply cultural morality and human compassion. The reason most people to not kill or steal is not threat of the law or god, but rather these basic human motivations.

[Angry Citizen]

If gut feeling is all we're going with, I don't think you will blame if some people draw different conclusions.

But that's the really cool thing - most people don't. Morality tends to be pretty similar across all cultures.

Lol. She must be crying over you from the Heavens, for the respect you have for her desecrating dust. But nothing moral or immoral in that.But hey! that's gut feeling for you.

Buddy, there's no heaven. Nothing exists of my mother any more. I couldn't care less about the pile of inanimate matter that used to be her. Now, if she were still alive, and if she didn't want you to - ahem - f*** her, then I'm afraid you and me would have some serious issues. You don't mess with a Texan's mother.

What if it makes someone feel better? Whatever your heart says, but surely you will not usurp his right to define his moral boundaries himself?

Morality has absolutely dick to do with 'feeling better'.

[Muckraker]

Here's my argument for it. Without any religion we would allow everybody the freedom to choose whatever is right or wrong. Everybody thinks differently and it would be the most difficult task in the world to have any common "moral" ground.

Most morals are grounded in nature and logic--albeit some of the logic of a divine nature is dated or skewed to benefit certain groups. If God told us to not chop off our own feet would that mean we are all more likely to chop off our own feet if we had no instruction from God? There are natural consequences regardless of the supernatural advice.

Humans are social animals by nature. Social animals tend to congregate in groups. Such congregation directly affects our chance of survival and our standard of living. Actions that are not logical in a social group, such as randomly killing people because you enjoy it, will result in punishment, death, or expulsion from the group and a decreased chance of survival.

If I assault you and take your food the natural consequence is that you will attempt to get your food back or seek revenge. So why would I act in ways that create larger and larger numbers of people out to get me? How long do you think I could evade the natural consequence of my actions? And when the wronged folks catch me, how do you think what they do to me will affect the actions and potential actions of all the onlookers? What happens when a kid about to steal a loaf of bread sees his friend get his hands chopped off for stealing a loaf of bread? What happens if God says it's wrong to steal but there are no natural consequences for theft?

[Jack]

If theists are going to insist that without the fear of god they would feel free to steal and kill can we conclude that many people adopt a theistic belief system because they lack self-control and can only avoid becoming sociopaths by believing in divine retribution? Can we conclude they lack empathy and thus cannot appreciate something as simple as "treat others as you would like to be treated" without it having to be printed in their manual of dogma?

[SoylentGreen]

My good friend I completely agree with you but if you take out "the fear of getting caught", I'm sure mankind's empathy and consciousness would very much disappoint you. Doing as much as they do with "the fear of getting caught", I wonder what they would do "without fear".

No, "I wonder" as the basis of your reasoning to support what you say does not cut it.
I myself wonder just how much of this nothing more than you attempting to reassure yourself that your god is justified in being a total prat. I wonder if your reasoning goes along the lines that if you can convince yourself people are only moral through fear then it's ok to fear the wrath of your god.
Where as if you saw that those who could not care less what some mythical idiot demands and still live a good life your support structure for a god given morality crumbles.

But like you I cannot support any of this speculation just, like you, wonder.

And the fear of getting caught is a secular concept. It is the fear of human authority not falling from your invisible friends good graces . Also the fear of getting caught does not stop a person from committing a crime. It only makes them more cautious. If they think their is a high risk of getting caught they only defer the action till the risk is lower.

[Strawman]

Offeror,

You seem to labor under the misconception that morality comes from religion. The opposite is probably closer to the truth: religion comes from morality.

Ask yourself, why does God prohibit murder, theft, adultery, etc.?

When mankind began to construct this fiction, Yahweh, he imagined an entity that was divine. Well now, what attributes will this divine entity be made to have? What is divinity? The only way for man to answer this question was to look to himself. Here is what he found: even though he is an animal, there is something that makes him different. Animals commit the 'sins' of murder and theft without conscience, but mankind restrains himself from these behaviors. The part of himself that offers restraint from sin was considered to be divine, spiritual, etc., and so he projected these attributes onto the fictional entity, God.

Man does not restrain himself from murder and theft because God tells him to. Rather, God is imagined to prohibit murder and theft, because man already restrains himself from these sins, and he considers this restraint to come from the part of himself that is divine and Godly. If you are imagining a divine being, he must be attributed with those qualities that are imagined to be best and highest. The best and highest in man is his mercy and justice. Hence God is imagined as the origin of mercy and justice. Man thinks murder is wrong, hence God is made to say that it is wrong.

[BlackSheep]

Let me try to offer an explanation that I think is the thrust of the common theistic position. Please correct me if this is wrong.

Our sense of morality was placed in us by god(s) and you believe that there is no other explanation that could explain why humans act altruistically.