Every sane person on the planet knows right from wrong without needing a religion to tell them. It's a natural instinct of all animals and probably the

only remaining animal instinct in humans that is beneficial. In many cases religion only alters and blurs what is right and wrong. Killing is wrong,

but killing in the name of god seems to be okay. History and present day prove that to be true. Many religions enforce these altered ideas of right

and wrong with blind faith and self-righteous attitudes, which in turn, creates more problems pertaining to ethics and morals. I firmly believe the

most ethical and moral human beings are the ones who know right from wrong and also have no affiliation to any religion.

Morality comes from a variety of sources, but a supernatural god is not one of those sources. If a modern human were to stone to death an

adolescent for not honoring his/her father and mother, we would certainly think him/her immoral. Yet, these are the prescribed punishments for

such acts, according to Abrahamic texts. Since modern humans do not follow their religious texts to the letter, they must have some method for

determining which prescriptions to follow and which to discard. The reasoning behind this filter is the same reasoning from which morals come.

Aside from this intuitive denial of a divine moral source, we are encouraged to question whether something is good because God tells us it is OR is

it good regardless of God's commands. If you answer with the latter, then religion is irrelevant to morality and if you answer with the former, then

morality is arbitrary (i.e., if God commanded that everyone be serial killers, this killing would be moral) and that seems wrong.

For someone like me who assumes all the law giving gods are man made and so are the religious laws - we have always managed to develop

morality ourselves anyway. Perhaps human morality is a mix of instinct, cultural and experiential programming and reason. I include religion in the

programming part.

But there is still the question would an end to traditional religions remove a pillar in society that improves the human condition.

For the more religious, I guess you had better hope you have the right god and right interpretation and right set of divine laws.

Also if a god gave us a conscience, this seems to work more or less with or without belief in any particular deity or dogma. You may be a good person but might not get to heaven.

So would the decline of traditional religion shift us towards survival of the fittest? No.

1) Atheists can be as good or evil as believers

2) Some religious laws are immoral from the perspective of equality, freedom, and improving the human condition. We would be better without these.

3) Religion had thousands of years to address slavery, race and sex equality, sanctity of life and has not done well. The enlightenment drove these forward.

4) During the reign of religion we have had more wars, murder compared to now - as the grip of religion has decreased.

5) Where we see religious fundamentalism we often see more violence. The most devout are often the most dangerous.

6) We owe much of our more civil societies to enlightenment values of equality, freedom

We have a sound basis for morality without god. We don't need god to value life

A generation that openly questions the existence of God,openly advocate homosexuality,very soon beastiality
A generation when morals and wrongs become relative
No fear of a supereme being
Imagine a whole you go to the open park and two guys are kissing and on the other side a girl and her dogs are handling infront of you and your child
Where half the internet space is filled with porn and acessible
And you can't even correct your child
He questions your authority and demands logical reasoning to why and how the sun has to shine

It fills me with fear,great fear

cococandy: Why?

@OP, you are very correct that your kid or you do not need religion. But I submit that your kid and you need to have a relationship with God. Your growing up experience is about religion - following dogmatic set of rules, but a relationship with God expects you to relate with and experience God and be open to reason and dialogue with him. I pray that your kid and you will accept the grace of God that has been extended to whosoever will through our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

Timmi: @OP, you are very correct that your kid or you do not need religion. But I submit that your kid and you need to have a relationship with God. Your growing up experience is about religion - following dogmatic set of rules, but a relationship with God expects you to relate with and experience God and be open to reason and dialogue with him. I pray that your kid and you will accept the grace of God that has been extended to whosoever will through our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

No be me get the original article. Me I believe in God o! I just wan make una see the way oyinbo man dey take raise dem kids o

KAYD007: Every sane person on the planet knows right from wrong without needing a religion to tell them. It's a natural instinct of all animals and probably the only remaining animal instinct in humans that is beneficial.

Knowing right and wrong is a "natural instinct?". Please, could you show us how you arrived at this conclusion. Nature is not moralistic and animals act purely on instinct. If you'd read the thread prior to posting, you'd have seen evidence of that fact.

Are you really saying animals act or reason on the basis of an instinctive right or wrong? Or that new born babies and young children instinctively know right from wrong

KAYD007: In many cases religion only alters and blurs what is right and wrong. Killing is wrong,

Yet abortion is not?

KAYD007: but killing in the name of god seems to be okay. History and present day prove that to be true. Many religions enforce these altered ideas of right

Where does it say that killing oin the name of God is ok? Killing in the name of rights, autonomy and freedom also seems to be ok.

KAYD007: and wrong with blind faith and self-righteous attitudes, which in turn, creates more problems pertaining to ethics and morals. I firmly believe the most ethical and moral human beings are the ones who know right from wrong and also have no affiliation to any religion.

So in essence, you are saying we are all born with the instinct of right and wrong, but those that take up religion have it warped?

TV

KAYD007: Morality comes from a variety of sources, but a supernatural god is not one of those sources.

And you can confiently say this because

KAYD007:
If a modern human were to stone to death an adolescent for not honoring his/her father and mother, we would certainly think him/her immoral. Yet, these are the prescribed punishments for such acts, according to Abrahamic texts. Since modern humans do not follow their religious texts to the letter, they must have some method for

And how do you know that we do not follow are texts to the letter. You've already demonstrated your ignorance by claiming stoning as the prescribed sanction for juvenile delinquency?

KAYD007:
determining which prescriptions to follow and which to discard. The reasoning behind this filter is the same reasoning from which morals come.

Nope, I discard nothing from the scriptures. Does that make me insane as you declared in your first post on this thread?

KAYD007:
Aside from this intuitive denial of a divine moral source,

So, we intuitively know right from wrong and intuitively deny morals have a divine source? That must mean that belief in God is the source of all mens ills?

KAYD007:
we are encouraged to question whether something is good because God tells us it is OR is it good regardless of God's commands. If you answer with the latter, then religion is irrelevant to morality and if you answer with the former, then morality is arbitrary (i.e., if God commanded that everyone be serial killers, this killing would be moral) and that seems wrong.

It would be interesting if you could provide proof of a perfect morality amongst those that do not believe in God, along with proof that it is also absolute - not arbitrary like Gods morality.

TV

KAYD007: 1) Atheists can be as good or evil as believers

2) Some religious laws are immoral from the perspective of equality, freedom, and improving the human condition. We would be better without these.

3) Religion had thousands of years to address slavery, race and sex equality, sanctity of life and has not done well. The enlightenment drove these forward.

4) During the reign of religion we have had more wars, murder compared to now - as the grip of religion has decreased.

5) Where we see religious fundamentalism we often see more violence. The most devout are often the most dangerous.

6) We owe much of our more civil societies to enlightenment values of equality, freedom

We have a sound basis for morality without god. We don't need god to value life

No one is saying non-believers cannot have a sense of morality or code of ethics. Simply put, without God, there can be no absolute or objective morality. Without God, morality is actually pointless.


TV

TV01:
No one is saying non-believers cannot have a sense of morality or code of ethics. Simply put, without God, there can be no absolute or objective morality. Without God, morality is actually pointless.


TV

I think it's the other way around, without morality, God is pointless....

MrTeymee:

Very True.. I love this

so refreshing to know there are others out there who actually think. The gullibility of our society is annoying.