Is religion the source of morality?

[(Q)]

Religion cannot possibly offer morality.

Morality requires logical reasoning in deciding what is good and what is bad. One can't make use of logic and reason if they believe in gods, spirits and angels, especially when these ideals must come to the forefront of ones decision making process.

Therefore, morality comes from social interaction and is merely demanded by religion as the "path" to follow through life.

 

[hungvu]

Everyone is born with the freedom choose whether he/she wants to be moral or to be immoral. Religion is a great tool to help bring out more moral from a person and to help suppress down the immoral side of the person.

 

[Q25]

You said it, you want to follow a moral CODE , only religion can provide such code.

not necesarily,
cowboy code would beat any religions moral code hands down


Gene Autry’s Saturday matinee saddle pals wanted to be just like their hero. Gene responded with the Cowboy Code, sometimes known as the Cowboy Commandments. They are as relevant today as they were then.



1. The Cowboy must never shoot first, hit a smaller man, or take unfair advantage.

2. He must never go back on his word, or a trust confided in him.

3. He must always tell the truth.

4. He must be gentle with children, the elderly, and animals.

5. He must not advocate or possess racially or religiously intolerant ideas.

6. He must help people in distress.

7. He must be a good worker.

8. He must keep himself clean in thought, speech, action, and personal habits.

9. He must respect women, parents, and his nation's laws.

10. The Cowboy is a patriot.

aint it?

 

[Q25]

Indeed, religion is the source of morality, it put purden on you to act morally, it has this guilt feeling and the fear that God will be angry from you.

unfortunately acting moral from Islams pov includes killing infidels!

Athiests have no fear of any guilt, they have nothing to restrain them, they believe this is their only life so they will do everything to enjoy this vanity.

youre so full of it, its not even funny

when have you ever seen atheists flying an airplane into the building full of innocent people,or blowing up abortion clinics b/c god told them so!?

thats right,never!

in fact 99% of criminals in prisons are god fearing believers,go figure.

 

[Katazia]

Proud Muslim,

Really ? how about the dictionary ???

Try something more relevant like a book that correctly defines atheism or perhaps even an atheist website e.g. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

That will provide you a correct definition.

If you have determined your philosophy of life based on dictionary definitions then you are in very big trouble.

Morality has nothing to do with physical needs such as food, it is about consciousness of how to get the food ( stealing for example is immoral ).

Try to focus a little harder – the point was about rational morality and how to determine what is right and wrong – the essential essence of morality. The issue of choosing food was an example which I had kept simple for you, obviously not simple enough.

You said it, you want to follow a moral CODE , only religion can provide such code.

Why?

to say religion is man made is very ignorant statement indeed.

Yet you offer no alternative. Are you implying that an imaginary god started the major religions? In which case show me a god. To date no one has ever been able to show that any such things as gods exist, have ever existed, or could exist.

you are displaying outrageous ignorance of Islam and its teachings,

Not so, for example Islam and you are homophobes, you persecute and show intolerance, and bigotry towards that minority group. Such actions against other people that do you no harm is rationally immoral. The Islamic ruling is based on ignorance of genetics and psychology and uses ancient outdated and barbaric beliefs.

None of your quotes from your holy book were relevant to the discussion and most seemed to include references to a fantasy god that doesn’t exist; others were encouragement to violence which I would consider immoral, and others were simply about Islamic mythology.

We already debated the ILLUSION (evolution ) none sense before, I have no time to go on again entertaining stupid idea such as the evolution, these sites might be helpful for you:

Try reading some real science and avoid propaganda. Evolution is fact you cannot simply dismiss it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

It is inconceivable that anyone appropriately educated in a western country could somehow deny the science of evolution. You are beyond belief.

Kat

 

[wesmorris]

It just makes sense to me that morals are about the survival of the species. Some people can't figure out a reason to buy into it without threats of "eternal scope". I would wager that the fact is, basic morals (like, don't kill people for no reason) are easier to live with than the lack thereof. People need to be able to expect things from their environment. Without morals, there is only chaos.. so for the sake of their ability to live with the general expectation "i won't be murdered senselessly" and "i have a home" or whatever... or maybe more directly to the ability to raise children who will be able to raise more children. I think the system "society" basically demands some form of morals for some amount of stability in the minds that comprise it. (and I think that 'stability' allows the species to flourish)

No?

 

[wesmorris]

I have a 3 yr old daughter who is moral, behaved and courteous even though she is not aware of any god or religion.

Hey me too.

 

[Katazia]

Proud Muslim,

May I ask you how many times you cheated on your boyfriend/husband..etc ????????

The notion would be inconceivable to me.

You dont act morally because you were born moral,

That sentence doesn’t make sense. When we are born we have virtually no knowledge of anything, least of all moral issues.

it is your family who have RELIGION taught you that stealing is wrong.

My family followed no religion.

.it is very absurd to say you are moral because you are moral erasing your background and your childhood and the impact your family had on you.

But I haven’t said that. Gaining wisdom and the ability to think clearly comes from living real life, making mistakes and learning from them.

, you are always living in fear, fear of death,

This is the essential nature of mortal beings which religionists try to exclude by creating mythological fantasy gods and fictional after lives for themselves – a fools paradise – the happiness of delusion.

you dont know why you are here and where you are going after,

But yes I do.

while me, I am living very happy life

But that is now a lie since you quoted earlier that you feel guilty when you consider immoral acts and you fear punishment from your imaginary god.

I know where I am going after death and I am NOT AFRAID to die.

That is the essential evil nature of religion – that it has brainwashed you into believing that the worst outcome for any human, death, is somehow a good thing. A total twisting of reason and logic – the essential nature of religious belief. When you die you will cease to exist and there is no single scrap of evidence to suggest anything else. This nightmare belief of happiness after death is also the trigger that encourages so many militant and deluded Muslims into becoming suicide bombers.

Sympathy from Pagan athiests is REJECTED,

Pity – you just missed your opportunity to become enlightened. Perhaps when you leave school and mature you will discover the need to learn how to think clearly.

And .. Pagan? I have never been called a pagan before – somehow it doesn’t seem an appropriate term.

Kat

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I agree wes.
The thing is those natural morals have been magnified into ridiculousness.
Not killing for no reason is one thing, but no killing no matter what is absurd. It certainly does not aid in the survival of the species.
I think the mafia is close to natural 'survival of the species' morality. If the entire human population was divided into mafia like mobs we'd be doing quite well. It wouldn't be chaotic, it would in fact be far more structured and organised than what we have now.
I'm fairly confident it is basically the social structure humans are supposed to have, like lions are supposed to have what they have and wolves etc.
Mafiosa were talking about holding down 'territories' and so on long before science knew about animal behaviour. They weren't copying off wolves or lions, so it must be instinctual for the human species. There are similarities that are too perfect. As an animal behaviour enthusiast I can see how mafia social structure seems natural and animal like. And how there is something wrong with people holding hands across the globe(even though they aren't, the fact most people want this is concerning and people merely aiming for that goal seems to cause problems). It just isn't an appropriate social structure for an organism on earth. It doesn't fit in.
If the world was divided into family clans with territories(which doesn't necessetate primitive savagery) we'd be another perfect species, just a particularly interesting one.
Yes people would get wacked every now and then and there'd be the odd battle between groups. There's plenty of violence now anyway, its just unorganised and ugly.
You might think I'm not talking about morals because you're so used to them being seperate from natural human behaviour, but no, if they are seperate they aren't real.
The mafia seems to be based on instinct, even though they tend to be religious they are usually catholic and catholics notoriously don't take religion very seriously.
The mafias not the only example, just the easiest one. Its the basic human social structure seen all over the world through history with modifications explainable by factors other than instinct.

Humans aren't supposed to consider killing someone a detriment to the species, the murder urge in all of us is actually in place for the prosperity of the species. But like all social mammals the murder urge is supposed to be focussed and purposefull rather than random and meaningless.
This kind of focuss can be seen in the mafia, it would be more apparent without law.
People imagine an anarchistic society to be filled with looters and killing and random mayhem, and it might be for a few weeks. But we'd quickly see a natural order form. And it would be very similar to mafia.
Family and friendships would become more important, because you'd need to be your own police and military. People would become cautious about randomly killing someone, because justice would be brutal.
It would be very complex yet very refined and structured. As far from chaotic as you could imagine.
And frankly life would be a thousand times more interesting, romantic and inspiring to those involved than the society we have now.
I would love anarchy, keeping in mind that in reality an anarchistic society would be nothing like the image that the word 'anarchy' conjures up in ones head.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

My point in relation to the topic is; morality isn't a concept invented by religion, its a natural instinct for social animals.
Religion is something that has molested and distorted that instinct and by extension the society of the social animal that is man.

 

[James R]

I invite all of you to answer the following questions. Simple "yes" or "no" answers will suffice.

1. Are things morally right or wrong ONLY because people say they are?
2. Are things morally right or wrong because GOD says they are?
3. Are things which are morally wrong ONLY morally wrong because God says so?

 

[Katazia]

Jenyar,

You're confusing survival instincts and common sense with morality.

Think more carefully, it is precisely those survival instincts and our higher intelligence as humans that gives us that in-built moral code that most of us follow naturally. We simply don’t need religion to tell us how to use such instincts and intelligence.

The truth is, morality more often contradicts the premises of 'survival', such as sacrifice.

Sacrifice is not particularly a good thing. This depends on whether your philosophy is altruistic or not, and that is a personal choice. Christianity would see sacrifice as good because of a false belief in an after life which lessens the natural human survival instinct. In this regard sacrifice is immoral.

Similarly we can argue that religion encourages war (immoral) by lessening the value of life (immoral). When the believer thinks that he will enter paradise when he dies then his instinct for personal survival is compromised. If everyone were atheist then there would be no wars – the atheist believes that death is the permanent end of life which in turn makes life extremely precious and worth sustaining and extending. Risking that in a war becomes extremely foolish.

We also see the belief in an afterlife being immoral in Islam where it has generated deluded Muslims who become suicide bombers.

Put very simply morality is anything that enhances life and immorality is anything that detracts from life. People are perfectly capable of using reason to determine the best choice based on this simple principle. And religion then becomes irrelevant.

Kat

 

[Proud_Muslim]

I invite all of you to answer the following questions. Simple "yes" or "no" answers will suffice.

1. Are things morally right or wrong ONLY because people say they are?

No, things are not morally right or wrong only because people say they are.

2. Are things morally right or wrong because GOD says they are?

YES, things are morally right or wrong because God says they are.

3. Are things which are morally wrong ONLY morally wrong because God says so?

YES, things which are morally wrong are only wrong because God delcares so.

 

[Proud_Muslim]

It is amazing that not a single Pagan atheist here commented on what the Dictionary define atheism:

here it is again:

3 entries found for atheism.
a·the·ism

( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

1

a Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2

Godlessness; immorality.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=atheism

Indeed as the dictionary define atheism, it is IMMORALITY.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

The truth is, morality more often contradicts the premises of 'survival'

Religious morality yes, more evidence religious morality is false. Real morality invariably is focussed on the survival and prosperity of the social unit.
Religion actually didn't call dibs on decent conduct, if it did it can get fucked because it can't call dibs on such a thing. Its older than human beings, let alone religion.

 

[James R]

No, things are not morally right or wrong only because people say they are. YES, things are morally right or wrong because God says they are. YES, things which are morally wrong are only wrong because God delcares so.

So, if God said murder and homosexuality and stealing and adultery were right, then it would be ok to murder and steal etc.? Agreed?

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

You say that things are not right or wrong merely because people say they are right or wrong. That means that things like murder and adultery are wrong regardless of what people say about them. Do you agree?

Why, then, are these things not wrong regardless of what GOD says about them?

Is God simply flipping a coin when he decides what is right and wrong? Is he just making it up as he goes along, or does he have a REASON for declaring some things right and other things wrong? What is your opinion?

 

[leda]

Morality is a useful survival mechanism which can be explained by a combination of evolution and game theory.
1. No - the concept of right and wrong exists as an evolutionary mechanism (although different strategies are available i.e. doves and hawks)
2. N/A
3. N/A

 

[leda]

As a further note, religion is an evolutionary mechanism that enables people to accept self scarifice for societal gain.

 

[Jenyar]

It makes me sad that your opinion of the human race is so small.

To borrow from Webster, as kindly supplied by DoctorNO:

2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct​

That is what makes me confident that we're not reaching these goals on our own... because if our nature, human instinct or whatever you wish to call it, requires such a system of conduct then it is obviously insufficient on its own. If we don't require external influence to regulate our behaviour, then why do we impose it on ourselves?

If moral behaviour was as intrinsic to human nature as everybody here seems to suggest, then why are there insufficiencies? Why can we act against our "nature" either way... if you don't believe in the supernatural, then isn't everything "natural"? That's one question I'd like answered. If nature has no will, why do we have wills to impose on it and why did we "evolve" it if the mechanisms of natural selection has been sufficient before morality appeared? I don't really know how to express it clearly, but there is some serious discrepancy here.

 

[Thersites]

things are morally right or wrong because God says they are.... things which are morally wrong are only wrong because God delcares so.

As I said: god is not right or wrong at all then, but merely made up the rules of the game of morality.