Which Came first, atheists?

Question

Xtians love to say that todays morals are dictated and controlled by judeo christian values. Now since the bible was written by man, did man put the morals in religion or did religion put the morals in man?

Answer 1

Morality comes from evolution. Children are born amoral (because morality in children would be an evolutionary disadvantage) and they gradually acquire a moral sense as they mature (because then it *is* an evolutionary advantage). Religion cannot and does not explain morality, but evolution does.

The one thing we would all agree on is that morality is about how individuals behave towards other individuals, and the consequences of that behaviour for each person. Christianity (as an example) tells us that only one god exists, and that he existed alone for all eternity until he decided that he needed to make some humans to love and worship him. Now, how would such an entity ever come up with ideas about how to interact with other individuals, if there is only one of him? How could he be the origin of moral views about relationships if he never had a relationship? How could he be the origin of rules about theft if he never lived in a society, or about how to interact with parents if he never had any? If you try to ascribe the origin of morality to a creator god then you end up at a loss to explain where it came from in the first place. The idea is clearly nonsense.

On the other hand, morality *does* make perfect sense if it is an evolutionary survival strategy - Part of the phenotype which has made us such an enormously successful social species. The 'function', then, of morality (if you can call it that) is simply to enhance the propogation of the genes which cause this kind of behaviour, which it has done extremely well. That's no different to observing that the 'function' of wings is to facilitate flight and that it has contributed to the evolutionary success of birds and beetles and other flying creatures.

So, morality makes sense in an atheist worldview but no sense at all in religion.

Answer 2

Since the bible was written by man, any morals that came out of the bible were a result of the moral guidance man put into the book.

Man does not need religion to have morals.

Man does need to give money regularly to the church however to be a good christian.

Answer 3

that's a really good point. from that perspective, morals are all made by man. but then you add in the whole concept of the Bible being "God's word", if you believe that, which confuses things a bit. Also, the fact remains that the morals still got there somewhere. And most people have some sort of morals, that generally fit with society.

Answer 4

Morals were not originated by religion. Religion may teach morals, but were not originated by any church.
Morals come from civilization. People learning to live together, the strong protecting the weak. The group punishing those who steal or harm another.
Of course, churches jump right in and claim that without the church, people would act worse than savages. That's baloney.

Answer 5

Since it was man who created religion, man put the morals in religion.

Answer 6

Since the secular Code of Hammurabi, which preceded the Bible, set down many of the laws found in the Bible, it is rather clear that religion incorporated existing principles.

Answer 7

Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins -- he devotes an entire chapter to explaining how morality could be a natural evolutionary development intended to preserve one's own genetic line and improve one's chances for survival.

Answer 8

man put the morals in religion. beacuse man created religion.
religion was created to scare jerks into being good people.
therefore, man put the morals in..

Answer 9

what is so hard about typing Christians I do not refer to you as an xtheist. or will your fingers burn if you type the word. as to your thoughts what moral value do you have a problem with in the new testament?

Answer 10

i'm no longer continuously sarcastic. i'm relatively sort of questioning in case you extremely understand the meaning of that be conscious.... in line with danger you propose condescending? yet even then, i'm basically condescending while talking a pair of subject remember that looks to have an obtrusive answer however the different area does no longer seem to attraction to close the simplicity of my factor. this would not continuously refer to a non secular debate, regardless of the undeniable fact that.