No religion would mean no morality

[BlackSheep]

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.

While I agree man likely created the various deities I doubt it was anywhere near such a conscious effort. I believe it was an evolution from simpler superstitions.

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.

First I strongly disagree non-human animals commit the 'sins' of murder and theft without conscience. Social animals other than humans avoid these activities and and seem to feel remorse.

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.

I agree man in general has projected himself on his deities.

[SoylentGreen]

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.

No I disagree, that is not the thrust, it is the result of the main thrust.

I contend that the thrust is more to do with what I wondered about in post 34. The argument by offeror is nothing more than an attempt at self reassurance on his part.

If everybody atheists and theists are morally motivated by fear of being caught then that gives credibility to a fear of gods wrath. Otherwise having atheists act in a moral manner without that fear means his god really is a wanker.

[BlackSheep]

I contend that the thrust is more to do with what I wondered about in post 34. The argument by offeror is nothing more than an attempt at self reassurance on his part.

If everybody atheists and theists are morally motivated by fear of being caught then that gives credibility to a fear of gods wrath. Otherwise having atheists act in a moral manner without that fear means his god really is a wanker.

Maybe a chicken and egg thing but it is their contention that morality is placed in humans. Hence the idea of rejecting god.

[Eclipse_]

My exact point is that maybe you would have some reasons not to kill, but as everybody gets the freedom to define their own morality, there will be other people who will have good justifications to kill too provided that they can't be caught by law of the land.

A greater share of inheritance could be one good reason to kill. The so-called evolutionary instincts won't mind it I think, if it makes one richer than his brother.

Even if you get morality from a deity, you would still have those reasons to kill, wouldn't you? God or no god, you still get a greater share of that inheritance; those motivations don't go away.
So, what changes when god comes in to the picture? Of course there's the eternal punishment, but it seems like most theists don't accept that the threat of penalty makes them be moral.

Also, where does god get his morals? Let's allow ourselves to have a lot of imagination and say that god is moral and good in every way. Why does he think you shouldn't kill your brother? Wouldn't he tell you the same thing as we do? His divine intuition tells him that it's not a decent thing to do; what else would be his motivation?

[Abridge3141]

This may be true if religion had not existed then this may be true...but you also have to examine the formation of morals in an individuals life, such as did their parents believe this etc.

[Peter]

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.)

The basis of morality is empathy. Those lacking sufficient empathy are controlled by fear. For atheists the fear comes from mans law and for theists the fear comes from gods law.

To answer your question you shouldn't kill your brother because you wouldn't want your brother to kill you.

[notthecheatr]

Actually, neither criminal law, religion, nor morality is 100% effective at preventing wrong acts. And all three of them can in fact cause acts which some people might consider "wrong."

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

I find this question a bit odd. I can't control anyone, on moral or any other ground. I can take a moral position, but that guarantees nothing - not even my own behavior. But what difference does it make to this scenario if God exists? The only difference is that now you are taking commands from God, instead of your own logic and intuition. So where is God getting his morality from? I could ask the following question to God:

Can you control him as a free being on moral ground, assuming an absence of criminal law?

It's an absurd question to ask period, whether God exists or not. The proof is that people still do immoral acts all the time - even people who believe in God, and in a punitive or rewarding afterlife.

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...

I won't. Thankfully, the vast majority of people do not want to do these things, or have these things done to them. Therefore, if your hypothetical ten people truly have made up their minds to do these things, then we can safely consider them mentally unfit to live among the general population and lock them away where they can harm no one but themselves. We may or may not also choose to try to help them get better, depending on how compassionate we ourselves happen to be.

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.)

Or, for that matter, why should anyone not kill anyone else if he will get money out of it? Of course, there are very many people you could profit from killing. Yet somehow, without any authority figure telling us killing is wrong, we managed to figure out on our own that society is a happier and more peaceful place without killing. Therefore, we consider killing to be immoral (based on the fact that it makes the world less happy and peaceful) and not only that, we have created laws to punish or prevent killing so that we can avoid it happening intentionally as much as possible.

[Tangent: should you object to my use of the word "killing" rather than "murder" - although you did it first - I will point out that even though we have somewhat different laws for other types of killing, for example war, we still have moral beliefs and laws pertaining to such types of killing - suggesting that at some level, we have a distaste for all killing. Which makes sense, considering that war as well as murder makes society less peaceful and happy. I'd hardly go so far as to say that killing is immoral in war, at least not so generally, but you couldn't say it's a moral non-issue, either.]

[notthecheatr]

The basis of morality is empathy. Those lacking sufficient empathy are controlled by fear. For atheists the fear comes from mans law and for theists the fear comes from gods law.

And still there are proportionally more Christians than atheists in America's jails. What does that say about the effectiveness of control by fear? If anything this shows us the danger of telling people that they can be forgiven for all their sins "later on" - implying that performing any and all immoral acts in the present may be safe so long as you have a future in which to "apologize" to God. Sadly, people (religious or not) are quick to ignore future implications in favor of present pleasures - which is why, to give a more concrete and at-hand example, there are so many smokers even though we all know smoking kills.

To answer your question you shouldn't kill your brother because you wouldn't want your brother to kill you.

Which, to clarify, was the basis for human morality long before Jesus, or anyone else, actually put this principle into words.

[BHownsall]

Can we be moral without religion? First you have to ask whether religion itself is moral, and if it is you have to demonstrate that without the influence of religion human beings do NOT have morality. I wouldn't deny that there ARE good morals contained within the bible, or within most other holy books, but they tend to be mixed indiscriminately with BAD morals. A person who based their morality on the literal reading of the bible might find the act of murder to be repulsive, but that slavery was perfectly acceptable so long as it was carried out properly. Without an inborn moral compass SEPARATE from religion, we would have no idea which religious commandments to put into effect. Morality is the filter, and someone who is religious employs it to sift through religious teaching and find verses that confirm the morals that they already had in the first place. You could say that a selective reading of religious text has the value of REAFFIRMING existing moral concepts, but not necessarily creating them.

[Layman]

"every religion which is not theirs is an invention of men, while their own is an emanation from god" Marx

"war of all with all" Hobbes

Could morality exist with out religion? Morality in the simplest form would be laws of experience of one person. Within a group a social contract. If a group is highly religious and wants to pass these values/morals on to the next generation then the laws of social relationship would be entwined with the the groups religious and state beliefs.

But again if we back to hobbes "a war of all with all" then something had to stop that. Which could of been as simple as one group looking at another and saying we shall not kill like that group. but if it was a war of all with all a force larger than man had to be implaced to make these morals. If this was actually an all knowing being, aliens, or just man him/herself, I personally cannot say.

[RjBig]

Great Job people!

What a wonderful debate you have going here. Open honest discussion without a bunch of name calling and BS...Beautiful!