Since when do you need religion to be moral?

Question

Just curious, I'm an atheist and I am more moral than most religious friends that I have. Why do you believe that you have to be religious to be moral?

It is human nature to be moral, it is also part of evolution to protect our race, what does religion have anything to do with morals?

roosterman, that made no sense

brendan g, there are more christains than atheists, unfortunatly. Hopefully that will change in the future

Humble Simple Man, Gee I guess all animals will just go to hell... it's the only logical explination

Tabitha-

Maybe morals come from that fact that you wouldn't want something to be done to you, why would you do it to someone else?

I might be atheist, but I'm not going to kill someone, for the same reason I don't want someone to kill me. I don't want to have something stolen from me. Why should I steal?

What makes people think that its God that makes the moral choices and not the fact that we just don't want someone to do it to us?

Amon -

The reason law exists are the same reason religion was used 2000 years ago, to control people from preforming immoral acts. Now that law is in place. Without the help of God, we no longer need religion and god to guide us. We can guide ourselves. Religion was a control mechanism and nothing more!

Amon again,

If you want to talk about genocide, look at the god of the bible. He is resposible for more genocide then any one human.

Answer 1

You don't need religion to be moral; however, morality is a little more well defined in terms of religion as opposed to the philosophical idea of morals.
The problem is, 'right' behavior is very heavily defined by belief systems, ostensibly religion. We cannot really determine what is 'right' or 'wrong,' 'good' or 'evil,' etc. Really, when you think about it, can you justify killing someone as being 'wrong?' It's a little harder than you think to declare it as wrong without bringing religion into play. Sure, it can be deemed wrong, but it's a little easier to do so with religion at your side, because there are clear-cut rules you are to follow, and if you do otherwise, you are supposed to be punished by God.

The point is that you do not need religion to be moral, however, religious people may believe they are more moral than non-religious people because they believe they have a better sense of what is 'right' and 'wrong,' since to them, only God knows what is 'right' and 'wrong.'

Answer 2

You don't need to be religious to behave in a moral way. However, morality is based on religious precepts.
There are plenty of moral atheists but where did they get their information of what is moral or immoral from? Where do all societies and cultures get their standards for morality from? It is always from religion. Not always from Christianity, Judaism, or Islam but from some sort of belief that recognizes the divine. A divine authority that says it is wrong to kill, commit adultery, steal, lie, demean and abuse other humans. Even if humans made up the gods it is still the gods that decide the issues that humans should hold sacred and those they should avoid.
Without religion and faith the human race would live in chaos.

Answer 3

How about this for thought. If it is our nature to be moral, remove all law, religious precepts and allow everyone to act as they choose based on their self appointed morality. Would you walk the street of that city unarmed?
Have you ever heard the excuse "No controlling legal authority." ?
Evolution works on the "survival of the fittest" principle. Or one may say, the stronger preying on the weak.
Look at primitive cultures around the globe. Tribal war and genocide. Why? Survival mentality without morals.

Answer 4

I believe religon does not have a lot to do with morals. Religon tells people how to think on some subjects and what not to do. However, many people don't follow this always. People make their own morals. I know christians with really good morals and others that suck. I am an agnostic and so are some of my friends, and we all have good morals. However, there are also atheist out there with morals that blow. Religon only guides some people to believe a certain way, not make them.

Answer 5

i think of there is a few thing interior the word you chosen: "in line with THEIR faith." The Bible is God's compass for us, and on a similar time as there could be many stuff which at the instant are not instructions for or against some issues that we are able to all debate and no person might actual chop up fellowship over, the Bible says some issues that are very clean and can keep on with constantly. the subject is this, even nevertheless many say they're of a similar "faith" they often do no longer keep on with a similar compass. If the Bible is the authority, using fact it is God's revelation to guy, and Christ established it and is risk-free therein, then those forms of matters you stated must be screened by that. inspite of the incontrovertible fact that it rather is been my adventure that even nevertheless somebody could be in a denomination that has the bible, whilst it comes all the way down to societal matters and private rights, etc, they unexpectedly have biblical amnesia. usually you will hear somebody denegrate the Bible as "packed with blunders" or that it rather is "no longer for on the instant," or that it is incorrect in basically some particular factors, or that it is not meant to be one among these compass. it rather is the impass. There are people who will cite Scripture using fact they understand that despite God's view is on the area, it is going to likely be the spectacular view. Others will twist the scripture or deny the scripture or forget approximately with regards to the scripture and are available to a distinctive view. placed the the two aspects on a platform, the two claiming to be Christians, and you get the conflict of words you at the instant are asking approximately. the modifications are "in line with THEIR faith." One part places their faith in God, the different in guy. One in Scripture, the different interior the media and subculture.

Answer 6

The only authority above man is God and He is embodied in religion. What you see regarding the ugliness of today's religious groups are not Gods fault but ours. We all know the truth but choose to ignore it and when the consequences come, we play blame game. That's the reason we need religion to be moral.

Answer 7

It has nothing to do with morals. I too am an atheist and am sure damn more moral then this old crappy friend I used to have. He's the type of crappy friend who always kept asking for favors even after he owes you over 200 bucks and never paid a cent back. He's been in prison, cheated on plenty of girls, done plenty of drugs, still lives with his mom, gotten in plenty of fights, and had the nerve to lecture me on morals and religion during an argument!

Answer 8

you dont need religion to have moral values. i do know many religious people today who try to be more moralized only because they fear God is watching...not because they really want to be good people.of course this does not imply to everyone.but i do agree with you...many people today feel that atheists do not have moral values (for example...my history teacher in school.she keeps telling everyone that she doesnt get why some people do not believe in God...and how they end up doing bad things because they're not following they 'right' path.....)
a person can choose whether he or she wants to have moral values or not...and following a certain religion does not necessarily mean that one is more moralized.

Answer 9

You have not at all proven by empirical observation and logic your pre-commitment to Naturalism. You have assumed it in advance, accepting and rejecting all further factual claims in terms of that controlling and unproved assumption.

Now the theist does the very same thing, don't get me wrong. When certain empirical evidences are put forth as likely disproving the existence of God, the theist regiments his commitments in terms of his presuppositions, as well. Just as the Naturalist would insist that Christ could not have risen from the dead, or that there is a natural explanation yet to be found of how he did rise from the dead, so the supernaturalist will insist that the alleged discrepancies in the Bible have an explanation - some yet to be found, perhaps - and that the evil of this world has a sufficient reason behind it, known at least to God. They both have their governing presuppositions by which the facts of experience are interpreted, even as all philosophical systems, all world views do.

How should the difference of opinion between the atheist and the theist be rationally resolved?

Arguments over conflicting presuppositions between world views, therefore, must be resolved somewhat differently, and yet still rationally, from conflicts over factual existence claims within a world view or system of thought.

When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist world view cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist world view cannot account for your question tonight.

The transcendental argument for the existence of God is that without the existence of God it is impossible to prove anything. And that's because in the atheistic world you cannot justify, you cannot account for, laws in general: the laws of thought in particular, laws of nature, cannot account for human life, from the fact that it's more than electrochemical complexes in depth, and the fact that it's more than an accident. That is to say, in the atheist conception of the world, there's really no reason to debate; because in the end, all these laws are conventional. All these laws are not really law-like in their nature, they're just, well, if you're an atheist and materialist, you'd have to say they're just something that happens inside the brain.

But you see, what happens inside your brain is not what happens inside my brain. Therefore, what happens inside your brain is not a law. It doesn't necessarily correspond to what happens in mine. In fact, it can't be identical with what is inside my mind or brain, because we don't have the same brain.

As the laws of logic come down to being materialistic entities, then they no longer have their law-like character. If they are only social conventions, then, of course, what we might do to limit debate is just define a new set of laws. and ask for all who want the convention that says, "Atheism must be true or theism must be true, and we have the following laws that we conventionally adopt to prove it," and see who'd be satisfied.

But no one can be satisfied without a rational procedure to follow. The laws of logic can not be avoided, the laws of logic can not be accounted for in a Materialist universe. Therefore, the laws of logic are one of the many evidences that without God you can't prove anything at all.

Answer 10

You don't. Morals are learned from family, friends and experiences. Religions tend to think they have the corner on the moral market, but anyone can have high morals and not be religious.