Source: http://teenink.com/mobile/713713

Morality is the degree to which something is right and good; it describes ones belief of what the right behavior is, and then how one fulfills this belief. It has been argued that religion is the base from which one forms their sense of morality. The belief that there is no God, or atheism, is a belief that is shared by an ever increasing amount of people. Such a belief can be traced back to the sixth century BCE in areas like China, India, and Greece. Many of the flawed and outdated ideology of the world religions have caused wars and divisions between races and peoples throughout human history. The idea that morality cannot exist without religion, or a higher authority, is inaccurate not only in that morality is an innate and evolutionary idea that has grown and developed over thousands of years and countless generations, but also because of the idea held by some religious persons that one who is without God must also be without a moral standard, an idea which is immoral itself.

.
.
Religion cannot be a basis for morality due to the immoral beliefs that many of these world religions preach and many of their followers hold to be true, in conjunction with the destructive impact it has had on humanity. From the perspective of equality, freedom, and improving the human condition, it is easy to say that religious laws are highly immoral, and thus are a detriment to the development of our society. An example of this is the thousands of years that religions had to address longstanding issues like slavery, race and gender equality, and sanctity of life, all of which it has failed to do. Even today, in Kashmir and other Islamic nations, women are forced to wear burkas from head to toe.

This is only one on a long list of Islamic laws that subdue women, a list which includes ideas such as women cannot marry without male guardian’s permission, they cannot travel outside of her home town without a male chaperone who is a close relative, and perhaps the most frightening, a women’s witness is worth half that of a man’s. One can even go as far as to say that the fact that in the Catholic Church women cannot be priests also shows a lack of respect towards women. It isn’t only women who have been lowered in status by the religious world, but also homosexuals. In the article, “Atheism Teaches Morality and Ethics”, Paul Kurtz recognizes that “Some conservative religious moralists seek to enact a constitutional amendment that would prohibit it. They insist that marriage must be between one man and one woman, as is divinely sanctified by the Bible; further, they believe that heterosexual marriage is threatened by gay marriage”

These outdated ideas are stripping a group of people from their basic rights as human beings based on their sexuality, which makes such actions comparable to racism. Richard Dawkins, a highly regarded evolutionary biologist and former Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, and author of “The God Delusion” brings attention to the attitude of many religious people towards homosexuality. Dawkins notes that their attitude is a true reflection of their religious absolutism, as he quotes the Reverend Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University: “AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”

Attitudes towards homosexuality, and such provocative statements as made by Reverend Falwell, reveal much about the nature of morality that is encouraged and inspired by religious faith, with equally informative and enlightening examples being the position held by the church concerning capital punishment and the sanctity of human life.
Apart from the degrading ideas of many world religions, the number of wars fought in the name of religion have caused widespread fighting and massive death tolls, and thus are not viable bases for morality. It can be argued that where we see religious fundamentalism, violence ensues because the most fervent and devout followers are often the most dangerous. This is evident by the analysis of religious wars like the Crusades between 1095 C.

and 1272 C.E, to more modern acts of violence like the acts of terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists towards the West. These horrific events in human history are a result of faith, which Julie Carnegie defines in the article “Agnosticism and Atheism” as a “belief and trust in God, accompanied by a sense of loyalty to the traditional doctrines, or principles, of religion” (2). This loyalty to such traditional ideas are what have kept ideas like gender equality and sexual freedom from truly advancing. Christopher Hitchens notes in his novel, “God is Not Great”, that Pope John Paul II, upon his death, was praised for many things, amonst was a list apologies which he made for the Catholic Church. This list included an “apology to the Jews for the centuries of Christian anti-Semitism, an apology to the Muslim world for the Crusades, an apology to Eastern Orthodox Christians for the many persecutions that Rome had inflicted upon them, too, and some general contrition about the Inquisition as well” (Hitchens 66).

With this, it appears that the Church was wrong more often than not. They have been erroneous and often even criminal in the past, which makes it incomprehensible as to how the Catholic Church and other religions can be considered an adequate model for one’s moral standard.
Morality is a human characteristic that has been developed over thousands of years, and is not a result of religious teachings or belief in a god. Morality is not a product of religion, rather it is something outside of any religious belief.

Richard Dawkins brings Harvard biologist Marc Hauser’s words into light when he paraphrases the biologist: “Driving our moral judgments is a universal moral grammar, a faculty of the mind that evolved over millions of years to include a set of principles for building a range of possible moral systems” (223). This means that morality is something that has been built and constructed as a human idea that can be learned; however, like language, these principles are not known or apparent to us. From Hauser’s idea, we can conclude that “ethical behavior—regardless of who the practitioner may be—results always from the same causes and is regulated by the same forces, and has nothing to do with the presence or absence of religious belief”(Zindler 1). It can be said that one cannot be moral with God.

Religious individuals would find themselves in a state of being which requires them to do good, not because it’s the right thing, not because they want to help, but rather because they feel themselves being observed by their omnipresent, omniscient God. It is rooted in fear that people, when they consider this higher power, move away from morality, and closer to the immoral behavior of looking for reward.
Because morality is something which predates religion, it is something that is shared in all humans, including atheists. Many theists argue that, without religion, or a higher authority, that there is nothing stopping someone from committing the most heinous of crimes. However, the behavior of atheists is subject to the same rules that govern and restrict all members of the human race, including religionists who claim the contrary, as in their minds they are governed by the power of God.
Despite such protestations by the religious, it is just as easily asserted that when theists practice ethical behavior, it isn't really due to their fear of eternal damnation, or their lust of life in Heaven. And if one were to only perform good deeds in fear of punishment and in hope of reward, than it is not morality at all, rather it is immoral in every way. The idea of morality is to do good for the sake of doing good, not to avoid eternal damnation or in hope of reserving a place in God’s kingdom.
Morality exists outside of religion; in fact, it predates the development of religions and beliefs in a god. They are not mutually exclusive and a nonbeliever can be just as moral, if not more moral, than any theist, and vice versa.

Through analysis of religious wars and religious ideas throughout human history, it is evident that religion has not only negatively impacted and contorted the human concept of morality, but also stirred a violence within the species, something which may not have occurred without such distortion of morality.

I think the question theist's generally ask is, "Can objective morality exist without God?".

Richirich713:
I think the question theist's generally ask is, "Can objective morality exist without God?".

Which of the 5000 different gods?

Each with one or more religions and each religion with even more subdivisions and so on

hopefulLandlord:


Which of the 5000 different gods?

Each with one or more religions and each religion with even more subdivisions and so on

The question isn't referring to a specific God, it's using God in the general sense. Evens if all religions are false the question still stands.

Richirich713:


The question isn't referring to a specific God, it's using God in the general sense. Evens if all religions are false the question still stands.

Nope since there isn't really any moral pointer by this 'General sense' God. all moral ideas of God concepts are very distinct and subjective still.

johnydon22:


Nope since there isn't really any moral pointer by this 'General sense' God. all moral ideas of God concepts are very distinct and subjective still.

You took the words outta my mouth

Thumbs up

johnydon22:


Nope since there isn't really any moral pointer by this 'General sense' God. all moral ideas of God concepts are very distinct and subjective still.

General sense as in "greatest possible being" not as "God the creator"

hopefulLandlord:


Which of the 5000 different gods?

Each with one or more religions and each religion with even more subdivisions and so on

If you really desire to learn the question you should be asking is;

Why does morality even exist in the first place be it right or wrong?

What triggers this indivual quest for morality and why does each agree that morality in itself isnt crazy even when that same morality varies from place to place.?

Because morality is based on individual choices and preferences, why is it we have a desire for these choices and preferences in the first place be it Sodomy, beastiality, e.t.c and how are we able to prefer one to another if we had evolutionary savage origins?

Richirich713:


General sense as in "greatest possible being" not as "God the creator"

I still am not finding any of such objective rule by any greatest possible being.... besides they are thousands of claims of 'greatest possible beings' [supreme deity] yet all have subjective moral ideas.

So where exactly is the objective universal morality?

4evergod2:



If you really desire to learn the question you should be asking is;

Why does morality even exist in the first place be it right or wrong?

What triggers this indivual quest for morality and why does each agree that morality in itself isnt crazy even when that same morality varies from place to place.?

Because morality is based on individual choices and preferences, why is it we have a desire for these choices and preferences in the first place be it Sodomy, beastiality, e.t.c and how are we able to prefer one to another if we had evolutionary savage origins?

For societal continuity...

if you were the only person on this planet, there wont be such a thing as any moral codec or values because there is nobody to direct your actions towards.

When you are the only person in a room, you can do what ever you want only when there are two or more people in a room that you feel it becomes inappropriate to fart.

It is a societal foundation

hopefulLandlord:
Through analysis of religious wars and religious ideas throughout human history, it is evident that religion has not only negatively impacted and contorted the human concept of morality, but also stirred a violence within the species, something which may not have occurred without such distortion of morality.

firstly, am not religious, secondly, after reading your post I still say some of your points are wrong. humans will always fight religion or no religion.

now take America as an example, weird things, people marrying bridges, dogs, themselves. mental people doing mass shootings for no reason, mental people doing serial killer job for pleasure, purpose is what religion gives. if there is no religious purpose then there will likely be no meaning of life. anarchy will come in.

religion has done harm to humanity but trust me if there were no such order things will go out of control. humans have no limit. when you give them "freedom" they will do things beyond imagination that is why the need for society guided by religious morals to put the human nature down.

Richirich713:


General sense as in "greatest possible being" not as "God the creator"

I am curious brother by these words above: Do you by any chance imply a possible greater deity than religious creator God or Gods like say Yahweh, Ra and others?

Richirich713:
I think the question theist's generally ask is, "Can objective morality exist without God?".

Thank you . Remain blessed for this comment

KingAdegoke:
firstly, am not religious, secondly, after reading your post I still say some of your points are wrong. humans will always fight religion or no religion.

now take America as an example, weird things, people marrying bridges, dogs, themselves. mental people doing mass shootings for no reason, mental people doing serial killer job for pleasure, purpose is what religion gives. if there is no religious purpose then there will likely be no meaning of life. anarchy will come in.

religion has done harm to humanity but trust me if there were no such order things will go out of control. humans have no limit. when you give them "freedom" they will do things beyond imagination that is why the need for society guided by religious morals to put the human nature down.

The bolded, you know this, how?
.
Have you lived in a society without one?

johnydon22:


For societal continuity...

if you were the only person on this planet, there wont be such a thing as any moral codec or values because there is nobody to direct your actions towards.

When you are the only person in a room, you can do what ever you want only when you are two or more people in a room that you feel it becomes in appropriate to fart.

It is a societal foundation

I beg to disagree. Morality is beyond right or wrong or the ability to teach or learn. Morality cannot be separated from your identity which is why one is born an introvert and another an extrovert.

Morality is like a spiritual DNA much like our physical DNA . It helps shape who we become at the end of the day yet its not found in our genetic code. Its why we all differ in opinion and yet have the ability to choose. Its why we even bother to care about ourselves.

So even if we are alone in this world we would still care for ourselves and be able to make moral choicss for our personal wellbeing.

johnydon22:


I still am not finding any of such objective rule by any greatest possible being.... besides they are thousands of claims of 'greatest possible beings' [supreme deity] yet all have subjective moral ideas.

1000s are gods doesn't fit the definition. It's has to be an maximally great being, like all-powerful, all - etc all that omni's.

johnydon22:

So where exactly is the objective universal morality?

While it is generally said to be grounded in the eternal nature of this being.

johnydon22:


I am curious brother by these words above: Do you by any chance imply a possible greater deity than religious creator God or Gods like say Yahweh, Ra and others?

I'm not referring to any gods, I'm just using a definition, the definition given by Saint Anselm and the modern version of his ontological argument for God.

The answer is No.

4evergod2:



I beg to disagree. Morality is beyond right or wrong or the ability to teach or learn. Morality cannot be separated from your identity which is why one is born an introvert and another an extrovert.

Morality is like a spiritual DNA much like our physical DNA . It helps shape who we become at the end of the day yet its not found in our genetic code. Its why we all differ in opinion and yet have the ability to choose. Its why we even bother to care about ourselves.

So even we are alone in this world we would still care for ourselves and be able to make moral choices for our personal wellbeing.

You and i certainly have different ideas of Moral ideas cus morality to me are actions for both you, others and collective societal good in general, i like the bolded word choices which still shows it falls back down to subjective ideas based on such a person's need.

if there is an involuntary innate moral drive then they wouldn't be choices, if there is then there is no innate drive.. you do not choose to blink or sneeze.

Morality is a matter of actions towards others and our society: actions that directly affect individual or societal well being.

We each are the same in a manner of speaking, we each have potentials to great good or terrible evil.

Our choices in our actions determines our moral tilt.

Richirich713:


1000s are gods doesn't fit the definition. It's has to be an maximally great being, like all-powerful, all - etc all that omni's.

Why do you think it should be only only 1 of such being, if there can be 1 then there can be up to a billion.

do you think 1makes any less of an assumption than a billion. ?

While it is generally said to be grounded in the eternal nature of this being.

So you think there is such a being [omni everything] directly responsible and in control of natural manifestation and causality?

Richirich713:


I'm not referring to any gods, I'm just using a definition, the definition given by Saint Anselm and the modern version of his ontological argument for God.

Yes and this is exactly the reason why there are many Gods, coining concept to encompass all the others.

Which then makes this God distinct from the other 1000 therefore again joins the lot of Gods

@johnydon22

Check this video out about the ontological argument:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXf-YyDFKXw90izlvLZ14ka&v=RQPRqHZRP68

Just a heads up, the argument is pretty complicated and at first glance doesn't seem to make sense at all. If fact I use to think it's the worst argument for God existence offered by theist's.

johnydon22:


You and i certainly have different ideas of Moral ideas cus morality to me are actions for both you, others and collective societal good in general, i like the bolded word choices which still shows it falls back down to subjective ideas based on such a person's need.

if there is an involuntary innate moral drive then they wouldn't be choices, if there is then there is no innate drive.. you do not choose to blink or sneeze.

Morality is a matter of actions towards others and our society: actions that directly affect individual or societal well being.

We each are the same in a manner of speaking, we each have potentials to great good or terrible evil.

Our choices in our actions determines our moral tilt.

Wrong! Why do we even have the ability of choice in the first place? Who determines individual moral boundaries?

There is something in us right from birth that gives us varied identities and mold us.

Question: How is it that a new born baby laughs when tickled and cries when in discomfort? Why do they not laugh when in discomfort and cey when tickled? Who taught them about choices at 1 week old? Do they even know what choices are?

If by some chance their reactions are emotionally triggered, where did these emotiona emanate from when they are not DNA encoded?

johnydon22:


Why do you think it should be only only 1 of such being, if there can be 1 then there can be up to a billion.

do you think 1makes any less of an assumption than a billion. ?

Cuz there can only be one maximally great being.

johnydon22:

So you think there is such a being [omni everything] directly responsible and in control of natural manifestation and causality?

No that's why I'm using God as a definition.

orisa37:
The answer is No.

You are right ! There is no morality without religion

Atheists advocate for incestuous relationships , bestiality , pedophilia , homosexuality , and every sexual perversion ever known to man . History has shown that atheists have an insatiable thirst for the blood of religious people .

This was written by High Priest of atheism Richard Dawkins in 1995 :

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.


Atheists have no moral compass . They even advocate for abortion and subscribe to subjective morality .

Atheism is deleterious to a sane mind . It is always masqueraded as a logical or skeptical based proposition on God's existence - it has been proven time after time as a barefaced lie .

In fact , this bible verse delineates atheism for what it is

Romans 1:28

And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome .

Richirich713:
@johnydon22

Check this video out about the ontological argument:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXf-YyDFKXw90izlvLZ14ka&v=RQPRqHZRP68

Just a heads up, the argument is pretty complicated and at first glance doesn't seem to make sense at all. If fact I use to think it's the worst argument for God existence offered by theist's.

I am familiar with ontological argument, St Augustine posed one too and Anselm.

It is almost like a logical sphere, going around it's self...

Richirich713:


Cuz there can only be one maximally great being.

Nope, nothing stops them from being a collective billion, 1 doesn't make any less an assumption than many.

No that's why I'm using God as a definition.

which still doesn't take a conventional image here.