Why do so many believe that a world without religion = no morality?

Answer 1

Unless morality is based on the Law of God, the definition of "morally right" simply becomes "whatever I think is morally right", and "morally wrong" becomes "whatever I think is morally wrong". Of course, that would only define my own personal subjective morality, since there would be no such thing as objective morality. Your definition of "morally right" would be "whatever YOU happen to think is right", which might be completely opposite to my definition of "morally right". If morality is completely subjective, why even speak in terms of morality? Morality would consist of "you do whatever you feel like doing, and I'll do whatever I feel like doing". I couldn't judge any action of yours to be immoral, nor could you judge any action of mine, or of terrorists, or of governments, to be immoral. "What's right for you may not be right for me" would be the foundation of morality, whether we werespeaking of murder, rape, child molestation, or any other act. All acts would be morally neutral, and would become "right" or "wrong" only in the minds of individuals. Morality is meaningful only when there is an objective standard against which to compare subjective ideas of morality. An act is objectively moral when it fits the objective standard of morality.

Answer 2

Some people think that atheists choose to be atheists because it excuses them from having any morals. Quite the contrary, I think many atheists have very good morals, unlike some religious people (and not just Christians) have. Most people become atheists because they cannot find a valid argument for the existence of God. There may be some differences in morals, but that is a matter of judgment. Personally, I think if you're not bothering anybody else, it's nobody else's business what you are doing anyway.

The greatest moral of all, "Do unto others and you would have them do unto you" appears in all major religions somewhere, and it's too bad that more religious people don't obey it.

Answer 3

This is a great question. Sociology teaches us that there are different levels of "morality." The first, is based on fear--mostly of punishment (hell/jail) from some authority figure. The second is morality based on personal gain, "When I do charity work, I feel and look good." The third is morality based on true concern for the well-being of others. To me, this third level seems like the most nobel while the others seem selfish in a way. At the same time, if fear of punishment is the only thing that's going to keep someone from stealing from me, I'm not against it.

Answer 4

If there is no OBJECTIVE morality (that is, one NOT conceived by man), then all is opinion, and your morality would be no more superior than mine. Who is to say that killing a baby is, across the board, wrong. More so, who are YOU to tell me what is moral?
Even religion would have a hard time exacting its morality. Therefore, a superior being, such as the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (God is not religion) would have to stand in perfect judgment.

Answer 5

Because they base their morals on their religion and motivate themselves with fear of consequence in the afterlife. They put their morals on such a pedestal that they believe that theirs is the only way and eventually will just automatically assume this is the case (inhibiting their ability to comprehend any alternative set of ideas- the idea of being wrong confuses them).

Answer 6

most religions have a set or rules and guidelines that people follow, like the ten commandments. if these rules are not followed, there is a fear of punishment from a god. the question is are people inherently moral or is morality learned through rules and religion. the fear is that if there are no moral guidelines or fear of retribution from a god for doing wrong, will people still make moral decisions? are people really moral, or are they just acting moral out of fear of punishment?

Answer 7

I consider the two your statements a million and 2, yet submit to in thoughts that there could additionally be a assertion 3: " all the undesirable issues approximately faith could be achieved without faith." the two Stalin and Mao proved this on a huge scale and on many events, and that's only in the 20 th century. on a similar time as faith isn't needed for stable issues to ensue, the absence of religion by utilising itself is not any assure of a greater valuable international.

Answer 8

Because if those same people could understand that they do not have a monopoly on morality they would not have someone to blame for all the evil in the world.

Answer 9

If you believe in God, a power higher than anything, then you believe in his laws and regulations, instead of bickering about man made laws and notions of morality.

Answer 10

Because people seem so certain that they only get their proper behavior form their religion. It actually worries me some when I wonder if that is the ONLY thing that keeps them from doing wrong??