NationStates Jolt Archive

Most religions tell us what is right or wrong. For example, in the Bible the 10 Commandments say that murder is wrong.

Most people would say that the relgion they believe in the the only true one, and its rules and guidelines would also be true.

If there is no creating force, a God for example, then there would be no right or wrong.

So can you only do a morally correct act if you beleive in a religion?

Can atheists ever say that their acts are right?

So can you only do a morally correct act if you beleive in a religion?

Can atheists ever say that their acts are right?

Yes to both.

I am an Atheist, yet I do not steal (file-sharing is not theft), murder, rape, beat women et cetera.

I act moral because I choose to. I like helping people. It makes me feel good.

This is good morality.

Many religious people act moral for fear of damnation. If this burden was lifted, who knows how they would act.

This is not good morality.

Worse still, many religious people do not comply to their faiths morals...

You can draw your own conclusions.

Worse still, many religious people do not comply to their faiths morals...

You can draw your own conclusions.

I would say following a faith and displaying outward piety while living a life of immorality and hypocrisy is the worst kind of blasphemy.

I think it's a matter of .. degree.

As a youth minister, I've counciled more than a few young atheists. From that, and the way they live, I think the following.

Religion has almost nothing to do on whether you are an ethical or moral person. If the only reason people act 'moral' is due to fear of Hell, then they're going anyway.

I think that there are probably a lot of athiests who are moral, upstanding citizens who can act and lead lives in a manner that is equal to that of any Christian. Unfortunately, religion deals with what happens to you after you die.

Certainly I don't think all athiests are corrupt, evil, or child molestors. I leave that, my friends, to a small percentage of our fallen comrades in Mother Church.

I would say following a faith and displaying outward piety while living a life of immorality and hypocrisy is the worst kind of blasphemy.

Think: Televangelist priest who visist a Lady of Negotiable Affections.

Which is very rare, before anyone gives me death threats.

If people would just use their last shreds of common sense, they could see how little religion actually affects daily life. It only appears to affect lives because people make it so. They are blinded by the fact that religion was probably institued to either keep people from becoming to powerful, or support the insecurities of the weak.

People must raise their heads out of the mud and realize that the only one who can affect the future is YOU! No god or gods will ever affect lives. People often search for strength and faith among gods, but in reality, strength and faith comes from the brotherhood and love of humans, and the courage to take YOUR own path!

Think: Televangelist priest who visist a Lady of Negotiable Affections.

Which is very rare, before anyone gives me death threats.

I think God (existence permitting, as always) has a "special" surprise in store for people like that.

If people would just use their last shreds of common sense, they could see how little religion actually affects daily life. It only appears to affect lives because people make it so. They are blinded by the fact that religion was probably institued to either keep people from becoming to powerful, or support the insecurities of the weak.

People must raise their heads out of the mud and realize that the only one who can affect the future is YOU! No god or gods will ever affect lives. People often search for strength and faith among gods, but in reality, strength and faith comes from the brotherhood and love of humans, and the courage to take YOUR own path!

Wow, good rhetoric.

I applaud you.

*applauds*

N.B: This person is not trolling, before the accussation is made. This person is merely on a soapbox.

I agree with Vetalia. It is the worst blasphemy.

My religion IS the true one...just kidding. I can't know 100% whether my religion is the true one. I'd like to believe it to be(except for the "everyone else goes to hell part") the right one. Guess I'll find out when I die....

I think morals are based on society...rather than just religion...

I think there would still be right and wrong if there was no creative force...I have nothing to base this on,it's just my opinion :p

Atheists can be some of the best people, in terms of morality and things...

This subject brought to mind a thread I had started up ages ago, so I brought up individual threads that answer this question:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9044221&postcount=67
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9044235&postcount=68
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9044258&postcount=70
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9044264&postcount=72
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9044317&postcount=79

"If there is no creating force, a God for example, then there would be no right or wrong.

So can you only do a morally correct act if you beleive in a religion?"

The second statement here does not follow logically from the first, and the first itself does not come from a sound logical basis. To address the first, this statement implies that if there were a god, then there would be right and wrong. But I see no reason to believe this. Many religions postulate gods without postulating attendant morals. Take the religion of the ancient greeks, for example. Socrates used to complain that the gods were bad moral examples.

The existence of god one way or another does not impact the existence of right and wrong.

As for the second statement, I hardly see how one's belief in religion, x, y, or z, or disbelief in all religions, has any impact on whether they do something moral. At the very least, we could assume that people are capable of being accidentally moral--which is to say, that even atheists love and care for their children, and do not go around killing people and kicking puppies all day long.

Hey, I don't kick puppies!

Who said that?

I have, however, been known to chase my cat around the house shouting "MOO!"

I like my own Al a carte version of religion, I can pick and choose what aspests I like and dislike. I don't know if I truely believe in religion. A couple of things have happened to me, that I ahve prayed for that can't simply be put down to luck. I'm all a confused on the subject really.

If you take a look at history, religion has done a lot more harm to the world than good. More people have been killed in the name of "god" than for any other reason. Look at Northern Ireland, Cashmere, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the World Trade Center- the list goes on. In a perfect world, religion would be abolished.

Somewhere in Matthew it says that those who claim to be religious but act against it are the worst sinners.

"They are blinded by the fact that religion was probably institued to either keep people from becoming to powerful, or support the insecurities of the weak."


actually, religion probably became institutionalized because people wanted it that way, and because institutionalizing it benefited people who were already powerful given their positions in uninstitutionalized religion. Institutionalized religion never prevented people from becoming powerful, it only helps maintain certain classes of people as more powerful than others (see Brahmins in the Hindu caste system.) Likewise, I hardly see how institutionalizing religion supports the insecurities of the weak anymore than allowing it to remain un-institutionalized.

If you meant, actually, the creation of religion instead of its institution, and merely misspoke, then you should be more careful with your words, but even there religion was not created to keep people powerless (again, much more likely it was created to invest certain people with power who already had power). As for insecurities, I doubt these entered very much into it. It was more likely a simplistic explanation for natural phenomena, such as rain, snow, winter, and death.

That said, religion does protect against the insecurities of death and fear, but it does so for everyone, not just the weak.

The problem with the notion that god answers your prayers is that one is then forced to answer the question, "Why, then, does god not answer the prayers of millions of starving children in Africa?" If god can take time out of his day to help you, whom I'm going to assume is reasonably well-off, given your access to a computer, then why can't he find time to save them from slavery and starvation?

I am of the opinion that those who commit genocide are the worst sinners, regardless of what they profess.

Hypocrasy itself is merely an annoyance.

That said, religion does protect against the insecurities of death and fear, but it does so for everyone, not just the weak.

Not everyone.

Not by a longshot.

I am of the opinion that those who commit genocide are the worst sinners, regardless of what they profess.

Hypocrasy itself is merely an annoyance.

Quite often, however, hypocrisy leads to greater evils like genocide.

Mostly hypocracy leads people to be petty and mean-spiritied. Far more people commit the sins of lust, greed, and not helping their neighboors than commit genocide.

You are correct; I should have written that it offers this to everyone, not just the week.

This is quite different from people actually finding it comforting.

Okay, new perspective, here.

I'm Pagan- Wiccan, actually, but that doesn't really matter.

Religion offers a person reason to exist. Who works better?

The person who thinks he's working to get a raise, or the person who works knowing that he'll never get anywhere?

Religion is a good thing, and yes, personally, I DO need it.

I love waking up in the mornings, knowing in my heart of hearts that despite the fact that people can seem like arses at times, there -is- someone out there that loves you. That they are within you, and everywhere you look, you can feel love.

Without religion, the world is simply a harsh reality. Let people have their illusions. Hey, it keeps me sane, at least.

No I don't need religion. As for right and wrong, I think religion makes people less likely to do right because they'll be following (often silly) rules instead of just thinking about what's right and wrong.

It makes me feel good.


well, that can be accounted for, or however it is said, due to the fact that it is proven that giving releases seritonin. This means, that there does not have to be a god to do morally right things.

well, that can be accounted for, or however it is said, due to the fact that it is proven that giving releases seritonin. This means, that there does not have to be a god to do morally right things.

Never heard that before.

Seems you really do learn something every day.

The problem with the notion that god answers your prayers is that one is then forced to answer the question, "Why, then, does god not answer the prayers of millions of starving children in Africa?" If god can take time out of his day to help you, whom I'm going to assume is reasonably well-off, given your access to a computer, then why can't he find time to save them from slavery and starvation?

Ah, the age old starving kids in Africa debate.

Im an atheist. Used to be agnostic, and actually my dad becoming a priest killed what little beleif i had :p
Well, here's my take on evil: We do it! Us humans are, inherantly evil

We're intelligent in a way that's unique (unless you ask dolphins or mice) and this means we're more than natural computers - we can write ourselves instead of following what evolution says, but we still stick to the same hardware, which goes "live - bonk - eat"; This means we can see ways of having more. we want more. Hey, who wouldn't want more of somethin good if it came down to it. Forgetting the whole no more of X food i've had enough idea, we still want to survive. more stuff = more chance of survival, right?


So, despite society giving birth to morals, we are still creatures of habit. we want more, even if it means others suffering. We can't stop that without going all brave new world, so i guess moral evil is here to stay.

read brave new world, or at least watch Gattaca, if you want to know what the last sentence meant.

It just makes sense to have laws against stealing and murder. Who wants to live in constant fear of being killed or their property stolen?
If there's no god would you like to live in total anarchy?
Now if you want laws that prohibit women from owning property or allow slavery you pretty much need religion as an excuse for those.

It just makes sense to have laws against stealing and murder. Who wants to live in constant fear of being killed or their property stolen?
If there's no god would you like to live in total anarchy?
Now if you want laws that prohibit women from owning property or allow slavery you pretty much need religion as an excuse for those.

This post has me confused.

Are you for or against the idea of Atheist morals?

Sorry, maybe I'm just tired.

This post has me confused.

Are you for or against the idea of Atheist morals?

Sorry, maybe I'm just tired.

There are no gods. Morals are man-made and evolve. If you look at old religious texts and compare them with later ones you can see that even in religion morality evolves. For instance; it's no longer acceptable to kill your son or commit genocide because a god told you to. Well, in some religions it is.

I'm catholic and i'm proud of it, i'm not the conservative catholic that sees abortion as a bad act (just in some circunstances) nor the guy that's announcing the end of the world, if you get the meaning the bible is a series of stories that guide us to have a moral life, though not all catholics lead a very moral life (I myself don't lead one) .

The church makes us remember that we have to our faith in something, if you don't believe in god you fear nothing, if you believe in him you still have fear, so you don't commit immoral acts such as rape.

God answers partially the question: "Where do we come from?"
Who created us? yes i know were conformed of atoms but, who created those atoms? a mere accident perhaps? i don't think so, one day we all have to pay our actions...


AMEN BROTHER!!! :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:

I like my own Al a carte version of religion, I can pick and choose what aspests I like and dislike. I don't know if I truely believe in religion. A couple of things have happened to me, that I ahve prayed for that can't simply be put down to luck. I'm all a confused on the subject really.

I have my own religon, i took bits and pieses of other religons and put them into one. I think i am beliveing in a true religon because (i think personally) at one time or another all religons were created by some one. I have prayed for things and the majority of them have come true. Also it gives me a sense of compleation to have a religon that i have never felt before which i enjoy greatly.

The church makes us remember that we have to our faith in something, if you don't believe in god you fear nothing, if you believe in him you still have fear, so you don't commit immoral acts such as rape.

God answers partially the question: "Where do we come from?"
Who created us? yes i know were conformed of atoms but, who created those atoms? a mere accident perhaps? i don't think so, one day we all have to pay our actions...
Actually, there is scientific explanation for this, but I'm too tired to go into it right now. Scientists have a better explanation than "there was a freak accident which created stuff".

As for the first point, I see it totally the opposite way. Being good because you fear god is not morality, it is just fear. You don't really support what you're doing, you're just afraid. I think that's the worst kind of morality, because it's fake. I don't need the threat of damnation to be nice to people.

I don't need a religion. Empathy works for me.

Religion is not the only guide to ethics. There are many other ethical systems. Divine command is only one of them. For example, you can be a utilitarianist, which means that you believe that if the end result is best for the largest number of people, then the action is worth taking.

Your message in no way addresses anything I said in my post. I did not ask about the origins of pain or suffering or evil. I asked why god should bother to answer the prayers of a relatively well-off person while ignoring the pleas of a child starving in Africa.

(and yes, human evil accounts for much, but it does not account for death, sickness, disease, droughts, famines, tsunamis, birth defects, etc.)

The church makes us remember that we have to our faith in something, if you don't believe in god you fear nothing, if you believe in him you still have fear, so you don't commit immoral acts such as rape.



Because, you know, no one in the Catholic church ever went around raping little boys. Yeah. god just stopped that set of rapes right in its tracks.

Thanks but no thanks. Somehow, the atheists around here seem to do a lot less raping of little children...

In my opinion, humans (for whatever reason) feel the need to have faith in SOMETHING.

This doesn't necessarily have to be religion, it can be anything. People believe in other people, they believe in nature, they believe in political systems, they believe in tradition or they just believe in themselves... it really doesn't matter what they believe in, but even atheists have ideals and morals that they believe in. It's human.

If it was true that the fear of god(s) would lead people to live a moral life and make them obey societies law, then this law would have drastically changed over the centuries and today you would find very different sets of moral behaviours in different cultures. You don't. On a deep down basic level, all human societies are constructed on the same set of rules :
Don't hurt others.
Don't kill others.
Don't steal from others.
Show compassion towards others and help them if this is needed.
These rules may or may not have been given by any god, but they are kept for one very very simple reason : They work.
Humans are social beings and society needs structures. And the rules above provide the best structure immaginable.

Of course, every culture and every religion gave those rules some different shapes and colours, they created different exceptions (Christians tend to condemn homosexuals, Hindus avoid contact with Pariahs...) as their societies evolded with and around these rules. But essentially, they are all the same.

So can you only do a morally correct act if you beleive in a religion?

Can atheists ever say that their acts are right?
What doesn't need to be is a religion of others enforcing their morals on you. Religion doesn't have to be so complicated. At its core, it is a relationship, one that a person builds with "the other" being their idea of what god is. No two people have precisely the same idea of what god is. Each has their own thoughts, warped in the own particular way to fit their own minds. If "the other" is moral, then you are placing yourself in relationship with something (symbolised as someone) moral. This is a good thing, it's you keeping yourself in check.

Yes, atheists can have a "the other" without acknowleding it as a god. It can be society, or an ideal, or even just mum.

I'm an Athiest, and I believe I am a moral person - although, morality is subjective of course; I've committed all 7 of the Deadly Sins many times. :) I don't go out stealing, murdering, raping and various other crimes though, many of which have been done in the name of religion at one point or another.

"I have no morals, and yet I am a very moral person."

I can't remember who said that originally...

There are no gods. Morals are man-made and evolve. If you look at old religious texts and compare them with later ones you can see that even in religion morality evolves. For instance; it's no longer acceptable to kill your son or commit genocide because a god told you to. Well, in some religions it is.


Way to jump to conclusions despite lack of evidence :rolleyes:

If you take a look at history, religion has done a lot more harm to the world than good. More people have been killed in the name of "god" than for any other reason. Look at Northern Ireland, Cashmere, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the World Trade Center- the list goes on. In a perfect world, religion would be abolished.
The list goes on.

On another topic one of the arguments for creation is that without creation by God, one has no morals to follow and therefore gets it completely wrong, this isn't true, because anyone an work out for themselves why murder is wrong. It wastes other peoples time, when they might otherwise have gone on to start a charity or a civil rights movement.

If you take a look at history, religion has done a lot more harm to the world than good. More people have been killed in the name of "god" than for any other reason. Look at Northern Ireland, Cashmere, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the World Trade Center- the list goes on. In a perfect world, religion would be abolished. Oh, come on. People will always find reasons to destroy one another without religion.
Look how many people have been killed NOT in the name of God:
Holocaust, purges, Cambodia, WWI, Rwanda, Sudan at the moment, Saddam's mass killings…

I act moral because I choose to. I like helping people. It makes me feel good.

So you do it out of selfishness? Surely that's not morality at all, to be truly good you would help people altruistically, not to get a buzz out of it. That's as selfish as doing good in order to avoid divine wrath.

Originally Posted by The Noble Men
I act moral because I choose to. I like helping people. It makes me feel good.
So you do it out of selfishness? Surely that's not morality at all, to be truly good you would help people altruistically, not to get a buzz out of it. That's as selfish as doing good in order to avoid divine wrath.
Vaevictis, I have heard evangelists on television espousing this same perverted philosophy. There is nothing wrong or selfish about doing things because it feels good; that is a misapplication of the concept of selfishness, which is harmful to others.

Noble Men, keep up the good work(s).

So you do it out of selfishness? Surely that's not morality at all, to be truly good you would help people altruistically, not to get a buzz out of it. That's as selfish as doing good in order to avoid divine wrath.

A couple of days ago I walked in the pouring rain with a large bass guitar in my hand, because it's owner found it quite heavy.

Somehow I don't think that owner found me selfish.

Ok, forget about religion giving people a sense of right or wrong. Think about all of the evil stuff that religion can lead to when it's in the wrong person's hands. (ie Inquisition, wars, etc) I do not think that people need to be God fearing in order to have a strong sense of what is morally right or wrong. I don't, I'm an atheist and have a very good sense of my morals.

I actually didn't say there was - but to condemn other people's reasons for good works while trumpeting your own isn't reasonable. Especially if you earnestly believe one is to avoid pain and the other is to gain pleasure, those are two sides of the same philosophical coin.

And I can assure you, I'm no evangelist.

A couple of days ago I walked in the pouring rain with a large bass guitar in my hand, because it's owner found it quite heavy.

Somehow I don't think that owner found me selfish.

You totally miss my point. I didn't say carrying the guitar was selfish, I say that doing so in order to feel good about yourself would be. The recipient of your generosity perceives no difference. However, if someone else carried it in order to avoid being sent to Hell, the recipient of the generosity would still see no difference. So how can you condemn good works based on one motivation and laud those based on the other?

You totally miss my point.

Really?

Then, friend, enlighten me.

Oops, sorry, I edited the above message as you were tyyping that one.

So you do it out of selfishness? Surely that's not morality at all, to be truly good you would help people altruistically, not to get a buzz out of it. That's as selfish as doing good in order to avoid divine wrath.

well, there are scientists who claim that helping people feels good because it's also better for your own survival
(i work on a fictional story based on the idea that even the most kind and helpfull act is in fact selfish, because it feels good)
but i don't think that doing sth out of religion makes it less selfish, after all, you'd just do it out of fear

You totally miss my point. I didn't say carrying the guitar was selfish, I say that doing so in order to feel good about yourself would be. The recipient of your generosity perceives no difference. However, if someone else carried it in order to avoid being sent to Hell, the recipient of the generosity would still see no difference. So how can you condemn good works based on one motivation and laud those based on the other?
But it isn't selfishness, that his reason for doing something is that it benefits him, because selfishness is at the expense of others.

Most religions tell us what is right or wrong. For example, in the Bible the 10 Commandments say that murder is wrong.

Most people would say that the relgion they believe in the the only true one, and its rules and guidelines would also be true.

If there is no creating force, a God for example, then there would be no right or wrong.

So can you only do a morally correct act if you beleive in a religion?

Can atheists ever say that their acts are right?
Yes we can … things can defiantly be right or wrong by our standards… most of us go by the “golden” rule , refraining from harm from others.

If there is no creating force, a God for example, then there would be no right or wrong.

So can you only do a morally correct act if you beleive in a religion?

Can atheists ever say that their acts are right?

I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in "good" or "evil" as transcendental absolutes. Hence I have no sense of morals, but I have a strong sense of ethics. I've worked out what I feel to be right or wrong, and I stick to those ethics.

And I believe myself to have a far more ethical behaviour than people blindly following dogmatic religious morals, too.

You totally miss my point. I didn't say carrying the guitar was selfish, I say that doing so in order to feel good about yourself would be. The recipient of your generosity perceives no difference. However, if someone else carried it in order to avoid being sent to Hell, the recipient of the generosity would still see no difference. So how can you condemn good works based on one motivation and laud those based on the other?

Maybe I should direct you to the definition of "selfish".

http://www.answers.com/selfish&r=67

I especially like the bit "wrapped up in oneself".

I don't belive I am wrapped up in myself.

On a totally unrelated subject; does Vae victus mean "Woe to the damned", or "Woe to the conquered"?

But it isn't selfishness, that his reason for doing something is that it benefits him, because selfishness is at the expense of others.


No. It isn't. Selfishness is for the self.

Oh, and to the poster above, and everyone really, I'm not saying religion is better as a justification at all. Nothing of the sort. All I'm saying is that the end result of a generous act is the important factor, to say "oh well you only did it because of your religion" is an irrelevant distinction. There are few truly altruistic acts, we all have reasons for what we did, this thread seems to have been about saying that some reasons are better, I don't see that the case can be made.

How is doing something because you enjoy it worse than doing something because you're told to?

For me, someone who does good things because they like helping others sounds like a nice kinda person. Someone who does good things because they feel they have to, that doesn't. (I'm not saying that makes them sound like a bad person, just that they're eft neutral).

I think it depends partly on whether someone does a good act specifically so they can feel good about themselves, conciously thinking 'I want to feel good about myself' or whether they help someone because they don't want to see them suffering and consequently feel good about helping them.

Edit: Just read the post above so some of this may be irrelevant.

Answering the first post, I don't feel any real need for a religion. I act perfectly morally and all the good acts I do are not done because of any religion. In fact, plenty of religious views about morality I would call immoral or at the very least, disagree with.

Note: I don't believe in moral absolutes so you can take all the uses of "good" lightly :p

Also, I believe that cultural differences change morality and two opposing morals can both be good.

Maybe I should direct you to the definition of "selfish".

No need, I'm quite familiar with it. A seflish act is an act done for one's self. If you prefer insert another word, the point was that the good work was done to feel good about yourself, to squabble with me over "selfish" is to descend into a semantic argument rather than the substantive.



On a totally unrelated subject; does Vae victus mean "Woe to the damned", or "Woe to the conquered"?

The latter.

How is doing something because you enjoy it worse than doing something because you're told to?

It isn't! I never said it was. The original post said the feeling good was better than the told to, I say they're the same.

It isn't! I never said it was. The original post said the feeling good was better than the told to, I say they're the same.

Which is why I just edited my post after reading a post you posted while I was writing my post! :p

It isn't! I never said it was. The original post said the feeling good was better than the told to, I say they're the same.

First off, it may not mean much, but I belive you when you say "it isn't".

Second off, I personally belive that doing something voluntarily, rahter than by compulsion, may have the same end result (wet jacket, safely transported guitar), but on a personal level, choosing to help is just plain good.

Whilst helping for fear of the eternal souls' welfare is a different type of good.

No. It isn't. Selfishness is for the self.

Oh, and to the poster above, and everyone really, I'm not saying religion is better as a justification at all. Nothing of the sort. All I'm saying is that the end result of a generous act is the important factor, to say "oh well you only did it because of your religion" is an irrelevant distinction. There are few truly altruistic acts, we all have reasons for what we did, this thread seems to have been about saying that some reasons are better, I don't see that the case can be made.
Think of how the word "selfish" is used in context: a man takes money and leaves none for others in need; a woman eats all the food and others go hungry. Selfishness is at the expense of others, which is the only reason it is a "wrong".

Selfishness is for self. That's what it means. And, in the context I was using it, that's what I chose it to mean. Other examples of other contexts don't change that.

Selfishness is for self. That's what it means. And, in the context I was using it, that's what I chose it to mean. Other examples of other contexts don't change that.

Then by this definition we are all selfish.

If someone spends the majority of their life helping others, and feels happy for watching people rebuild their lifes et cetera, by your definition they are selfish.

It seems one of us has a skewed definition of selfish.

Although I can understand what you were saying when I adopt your definition.

Selfishness is for self. That's what it means. And, in the context I was using it, that's what I chose it to mean. Other examples of other contexts don't change that.
For an example, look up "selfishness" in an online thesaurus, like the one at http://dictionary.com, and you will see only negative connotations. That is its context.

For an example, look up "selfishness" in an online thesaurus, like the one at http://dictionary.com, and you will see only negative connotations. That is its context.

I already done that.

'Hey ma, what's that over there?"
"It's a post, sweetie"
"But what's it doing?"
"Why, it's bumping the thread."


BUMP!!!

Most organized religions include three major concepts.

1) Personal relationship with God or with His priests, prophet(s) or avatar(s).

2) A moral basis upon which our terrestrial life is judged or will be judged. Religious people believe that this moral exists "above all", i.e. it precludes the physical world and transcends History and human establishments (countries, politics, languages, ...).

3) A human community of people sharing a similar faith, along with customs, social rules and gatherings or celebrations. Usually established by a prophet or by the initial community.

For example, in almost any Christian faith, you find these three concepts as:
1) Prayer (personal relationship with God). Represented by the Father.
2) Moral beliefs, a collection of which is written in the Bible. Represented by the Holy Spirit.
3) A human community, established by the apostles, who gather for eucharisty. Represented by Jesus.

The Christian Credo gives a precise view on these three concepts.

You cannot have a religion without a community; the concept of "personal religion" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a "religious buffet" in which we pick and choose and fill our "moral platter".

You can have faith without being part of a religion, though. That's why we make a distinction between "pure atheists" and "agnostics" (who believe God(s) cannot be understood or reached, and thus we should focus on real stuff).

We should understand that religion is much more than moral beliefs, even though moral beliefs are at the core of any serious religion. Moreover, most religions agree on the basic moral (sanctity of life, for example) but strongly disagree on their meanings and on their application in real life.

Let's think about an atheist environmentalist. Could his way of life fit in the "religion" slot?
1) He goes hiking alone to be "in contact with Nature" and to "fill his batteries".
2) He believes in the morales of environment protection, he is against animal cruelty, he has some strong moral beliefs. He can name a few compelling books, such as "Gaia Hypothesis".
3) He gathers with other environmentalists and goes to "earth day" festivals. He follows strict food rules, bans GM food and animal fur, and so on.

What is his faith, then? He believes that Earth is alive, that all that is alive is "one", and that Nature is too complex for us to understand. To me, this looks pretty much like "active agnosticism" or even life a religion!

Even some hard-core scientists, either geneticians, astronomists, biologists or mathematicians will end up having some faith in "something bigger than us". Most people are baffled by the beauty of fractals, by the incredible complexity of life, by "accidental beauty" (which is found almost anywhere), or by the elegance of irrational numbers.

If you don't believe in anything bigger than yourself, you cannot have a moral sense. Thus, the only immoral path is "hardcore individualism".

What is his faith, then? He believes that Earth is alive, that all that is alive is "one", and that Nature is too complex for us to understand. To me, this looks pretty much like "active agnosticism" or even life a religion!

...and to me it doesn't.

Interesting post but I don't think believing in something equates to a religion.

If you don't believe in anything bigger than yourself, you cannot have a moral sense.

Even if I do believe in something "bigger than myself" (which I'm not sure if I do or if I do in the sense you seem to mean), it doesn't affect my moral decisions. If you take the example of being overwhelmed by the complexity and beauty of nature, how does that effect my choices? How does that make me do good deeds? How is that any basis for my personal values and morals?

"agnostics" (who believe God(s) cannot be understood or reached, and thus we should focus on real stuff).

Actually, agnostics either admit they don't know or believe you cannot know whether there is a God or not.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=1676&dict=CALD

Let's think about an atheist environmentalist. Could his way of life fit in the "religion" slot?

What is his faith, then? He believes that Earth is alive, that all that is alive is "one", and that Nature is too complex for us to understand. To me, this looks pretty much like "active agnosticism" or even life a religion!

If you don't believe in anything bigger than yourself, you cannot have a moral sense. Thus, the only immoral path is "hardcore individualism".

First off, you aren't describing Atheism as a religion, you are describing enviromentalism as a religion.

The last paragraph is sadly skewed.

As I have said, I do not belive in a higher power. Am I immoral?

As I have said, I do not belive in a higher power. Am I immoral?
Do you believe in anything? ;)
Some people like to think that they don't believe in enything but themselves. Well... believing in oneself is important, isn't it? But there has to be something else. Otherwise there is a "WHAT" but there is no "WHY".

Do you follow some laws?
Do you vote?
Do you respect life?
Can you be truly generous?
Do you believe some things are wrong?
Do you have hope, do you believe some situations should change?
Do you believe that some beliefs are not healthy or are destructive and that we should take action?
(...)

As soon as you try to explain the "why" behind these, you end up refering to something bigger than yourself. You cannot hide behind yourself forever!

Here are the most common "shortcuts" used as "non answers" to these "why questions".
1) The selfishness (center-of-the-universe) theory: Everything we do, we do in a selfish way / for pleasing ourselves. If i do good things, it is purely accidental or for a selfish purpose.
2) The genetic (hardwired) theory: Our behaviour is programmed by our genes and by biology. Individuals and society evolved that way. Survival of the individual and survival of the group are the "pulsions" guiding everything we do. (see Richard Dawkins' theories about genes).
3) The ultra-individualist (nihilist) theory: Our life has no purpose and therefore, everything I do, I do it to make sure that I will live a comfortable and long life.

Of course, these theories all carry some moral sense... up to a certain point. :p

First off, you aren't describing Atheism as a religion, you are describing enviromentalism as a religion.
This wasn't my goal.
All I said was that many atheists are not true atheists. They believe they are, but their actions point in another direction.
The "atheist environmentalist" was used as an example.

Human beings place themselves in relationship to other things in order to be. This stems from the very nature of consciousness (the faculty of awareness), which requires the existence of things apart from it to know that it is. We place ourselves in relationship to other humans, other conscious minds; we place ourselves in relationship to our environment, the natural one and the social one; and we place ourselves in relationships like those with god and the universe. All of these things happen naturally.

I think, for the most part, that athiests occur (and I used to be one) because people do not understand that the images of god we invent, that come from the seat of imagination, to symbolise what is essentially a concept of greater otherness, are just those: symbols. Nothing more, nothing less. All we know of god is our end of the relationship we build to him/her/it. Everything else (that which we call our religions) is built up from there.

I believe we need religion, we need to put ourselves in relationship to something vastly, unimaginably greater. Not because it humbles us--that is just a side benefit--but because it centers us and gives us a sense of our place in the scheme of things.

Do you believe in anything? ;)

Do you follow some laws?
Do you vote?
Do you respect life?
Can you be truly generous?
Do you believe some things are wrong?
Do you have hope, do you believe some situations should change?
Do you believe that some beliefs are not healthy or are destructive and that we should take action?
(...)


Yes. I belive that the sky wont fall tomorrow.

When someone says "higher power", they usually mean a "divine power".

That list does not mention anything that is purely divine.

So can you only do a morally correct act if you beleive in a religion?

Can atheists ever say that their acts are right?

1. Some of the most terrible moral acts have been committed by those who are, or at least say they are, religious.

2. I am an atheist and don't believe myself to be a bad guy so you decide.

If you don't believe in anything bigger than yourself, you cannot have a moral sense. Thus, the only immoral path is "hardcore individualism".
Hmm?
What I know of as individualism is saying that the individual is of primary importance, rather than a collective. What I would think of as 'hardcore individualism' is a belief that no entity should have control over the individual. That sounds quite moral to me.

Am I misunderstanding what you mean by either 'individualism' or 'immoral'? Those are the two words where it would seem my interpretation could be most suspect.

There are some people who simply do not want to think that there is any possible way that there could ever be a higher power. Thus, they will go to any end possible to derail any ideas that suggest a higher power could exist, regardless of the form it takes. They will also consistantly deny their belief in such a thing while maintaining they have full , meaning-enriched lives of their own.

That's their choice. To the question of "do you need religion", I think that depends upon the person.

The source of immorality is not a lack of religion. Jesus never said that anyone who didn't belive in the Father through him was evil, or immoral, or hateful. The idea that all of our misguided fellow humans who don't believe are somehow 'evil' simply because of that is both boorish and inaccurate.

Some might claim that an athiest is more likely to be immoral since he/she has nothing to answer to in any after life. Oddly enough, in my years of ministry, I've found a lot of my fellow Baptists aren't much better since some of them seem to think they can sin all they like and mumble a prayer on Sunday to be forgiven.

Absolutism is the most vitroilic of tyrannies.

I would say following a faith and displaying outward piety while living a life of immorality and hypocrisy is the worst kind of blasphemy.
Hypocrites were positioned by Dante ("Divina Commedia: Inferno", 1308-1321) further inside hell than heretics and sceptics so he considered it so too.

To the OP. At the same time I've seen many Christians as the morally worst. I think it's because they feel they can simply pray for forgiveness and feel that they have redemption. While an athiest would carry guilt on their shoulders.

I've seen this 'Christian abuse" many times. They can steal, or tease someone. Doo all sorts of things. As long as they pray everynight and go to church on Sunday though they are a good person.

*note not all Christians obviously take such a careless view on their religion and believe that simply asking to be forgiven without feeling guilt gets them off the hook as it were.

What I know of as individualism is saying that the individual is of primary importance, rather than a collective. What I would think of as 'hardcore individualism' is a belief that no entity should have control over the individual. That sounds quite moral to me.
Maybe I should have written "extreme individualism".
I used to know a guy who basically said, "If I can use you, I will. That's the purpose of knowing people. The weakest will be exploited by the strong. If I can backstab you, I will, and it will be your fault. All I care for, is my own survival and my comfort. Other people are worth nothing to me." And he would start lenghty discussions about the fact that we are civilized beasts, but that we are still in competition, this is a jungle in there, and so on. He would explain that this is the only natural thing to be, that society was artificial and accidental, that it enslaves the human, and so on. We got really pissed off with him.

In the end, he had no more friends, and I don't know what happened with him. And quite frankly, I don't care.

I used to know a guy who basically said, "If I can use you, I will. That's the purpose of knowing people. The weakest will be exploited by the strong. If I can backstab you, I will, and it will be your fault. All I care for, is my own survival and my comfort. Other people are worth nothing to me." And he would start lenghty discussions about the fact that we are civilized beasts, but that we are still in competition, this is a jungle in there, and so on. He would explain that this is the only natural thing to be, that society was artificial and accidental, that it enslaves the human, and so on. We got really pissed off with him.
I would tell this fellow, "If your position is so common and universal, why do you have to explain it to everyone here?" No, he was the odd man out. Even admits it, it in a way, when he says that in trusting him, we are to blame: there is a reason for that trust, and he knows it.

The problem with the notion that god answers your prayers is that one is then forced to answer the question, "Why, then, does god not answer the prayers of millions of starving children in Africa?" If god can take time out of his day to help you, whom I'm going to assume is reasonably well-off, given your access to a computer, then why can't he find time to save them from slavery and starvation?

a few of my friends say theyr atheist and iv heard this one before.i dont think the purpose of life is to have a nice time.its as simple as that.if it was,we'd all be in heaven.if religion has any purpose at all it is to show us that suffering isnt meaningless,that we are here for a reason.i think God has answered our prayers by giving us the power to help ourselves and to help each other,and that includes the starving in africa.

Religion, for me, was a combination of a crutch and a straightjacket. I only believed in it since that's what I was taught I absolutely had to do. I am personally better off without it. Perhaps there is a religion out there that fits me, but I haven't seen it yet.

Note that I am not saying 'religion is a crutch'. There are many people that have found that a particular religion suits them, and believe. I respect that. I just am not one of those people.

Most religions tell us what is right or wrong. For example, in the Bible the 10 Commandments say that murder is wrong.

Most people would say that the relgion they believe in the the only true one, and its rules and guidelines would also be true.

If there is no creating force, a God for example, then there would be no right or wrong.

So can you only do a morally correct act if you beleive in a religion?

Can atheists ever say that their acts are right?


...just because someone is not religious* it doesnt mean they have no morals and guidelines. humanists for example.

*Do i care about the spelling if its wrong?..no

:sniper: better yet, religion is the cause of all war. war is a bad thing. so why believe in religion. :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: bring on religion, bring on any fucker who wants a piece of the good old British Army :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

:sniper: better yet, religion is the cause of all war. war is a bad thing. so why believe in religion. :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: bring on religion, bring on any fucker who wants a piece of the good old British Army :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

.....something tells me you and i are going to get on famously

Most religions tell us what is right or wrong. For example, in the Bible the 10 Commandments say that murder is wrong.

Most people would say that the relgion they believe in the the only true one, and its rules and guidelines would also be true.

If there is no creating force, a God for example, then there would be no right or wrong.

Okay, there's your big leap in logic, and your big glaring error.

According to people who base their religion on religion, there would be no right or wrong without God/gods/Force/whatever. According to objective reality, there simply is no right or wrong at all.


So can you only do a morally correct act if you beleive in a religion?

Morality is a human construct, not an objective quality. Any person can act morally, amorally, or immorally. A single act may be simultaneously moral, amoral, and immoral.


Can atheists ever say that their acts are right?
Sure, why not? They've (objectively) got as much right to do so as any religious person has...in my opinion, they've got even more right to do so.

better yet, religion is the cause of all war. war is a bad thing. so why believe in religion. bring on religion, bring on any fucker who wants a piece of the good old British Army

Not all war.

Your smilies were removed in the quote because they were too annoying.

Do not omit spelling, grammar et cetera and expect anyone to take you seriously.

And do not forget the CAPITAL LETTERS at the start of a sentence.

i dont think the purpose of life is to have a nice time.its as simple as that.if it was,we'd all be in heaven.

What kind of logic is that?! Just because the purpose of life may be for humans to enjoy themselves, doesn't mean we are all going to be living in heaven. The purpose of eating is to gain nourishment and fuel our bodies, but that doesn't automatically mean that all humans have enough to eat...see how that works?

if religion has any purpose at all it is to show us that suffering isnt meaningless,that we are here for a reason.

I'd love to hear you support that thesis...it's an interesting one.


i think God has answered our prayers by giving us the power to help ourselves and to help each other,and that includes the starving in africa.
So if I were to go up to a police officer and say, "Help! I'm being chased by a madman who wants to rape and murder me!!" and that policeman were to say, "Okay, I'm not actually going to help you myself, but you can take this newspaper I've got and use it to defend yourself against the man attacking you," that would qualify as answering my plea for help?

We've got a bunch of humans saying, "Please, God, help us! We are starving, we are sick, we are dying! Please help us!" and you're telling me that God answers their requests with, "Okay, tell you what: I'm not going to use my infinite powers to save you and make sure that all people experience justice, but I am going to empower some of your fellow humans to use their primitive and limited talents to maybe pass out some bandages or something."

Yes to both.

I am an Atheist, yet I do not steal (file-sharing is not theft), murder, rape, beat women et cetera.

I act moral because I choose to. I like helping people. It makes me feel good.

This is good morality.

Many religious people act moral for fear of damnation. If this burden was lifted, who knows how they would act.

This is not good morality.

Worse still, many religious people do not comply to their faiths morals...

You can draw your own conclusions.

HELL YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HELL YEA!<snipped>

Why, thank you for your support.

It is much appreciated.

Sorry I snipped the !s.

One should not need to act moraly because of some archaic heavenly threat.
You should not act morally out of fear to some man in the sky...you should act morally because you are yearn to help others and live well and kind

I'd love to hear you support that thesis...it's an interesting one.


So if I were to go up to a police officer and say, "Help! I'm being chased by a madman who wants to rape and murder me!!" and that policeman were to say, "Okay, I'm not actually going to help you myself, but you can take this newspaper I've got and use it to defend yourself against the man attacking you," that would qualify as answering my plea for help?

We've got a bunch of humans saying, "Please, God, help us! We are starving, we are sick, we are dying! Please help us!" and you're telling me that God answers their requests with, "Okay, tell you what: I'm not going to use my infinite powers to save you and make sure that all people experience justice, but I am going to empower some of your fellow humans to use their primitive and limited talents to maybe pass out some bandages or something."

its true,people could be doin a lot more.what exactly are you sayin anyway?that theres no meaning to life(and in the last post i sed the that it IS NOT human happiness.as long as we have free will,thers always gonna be people who misuse it)?so what,just because ther isnt food falin out of the sky thers no God?u cant sit around waitin for miracles.my point is wer here,the world is full of shite,but all we can do is make the most of things.and yeah,the main idea in religion is to teach us wer not goin thru all this for nothing.now u tel me why thats such a bad thing.

If there is a god I personally hate the fucker. I hear religious folk claim that there is a purpose for everything. What is the purpose in a four month old baby being mauled to death by your neighbor’s dog that suddenly goes crazy? That all part of god's divine plan, hmm? And if this "god" is going to damn me to ETERNAL SUFFERING, never ending pain, for giving up faith over something like that, then I don't think I'd want to spend the afterlife with him anyway.

I haven't read the rest of this thread so maybe this has already been talked about but i have a point for atheists to read:

If there's no God, no plan for us, no point to life, if we're just a randomly evolved creature, then why should it matter anymore to us that a 4month old kid gets mauled by a dog than someone stepping on a colony of ants? What right do we have to say we're more important?

I haven't read the rest of this thread so maybe this has already been talked about but i have a point for atheists to read:

If there's no God, no plan for us, no point to life, if we're just a randomly evolved creature, then why should it matter anymore to us that a 4month old kid gets mauled by a dog than someone stepping on a colony of ants? What right do we have to say we're more important?

Every form of life claims (at least would if they could) that they are more important than any other. Survival of our species is all that matters and that takes precedence over everything else.

Every form of life claims (at least would if they could) that they are more important than any other. Survival of our species is all that matters and that takes precedence over everything else.

So what you're saying is that, from a completely unbiased perspective, human life matters as much as an ants life?

btw i don't really think you believe that argument... you're just arguing for the hell of it

So what you're saying is that, from a completely unbiased perspective, human life matters as much as an ants life?

btw i don't really think you believe that argument... you're just arguing for the hell of it

What I'm saying is that from an ant's point of view, the existance of ant-kind is more important that the existance of any other kind. Same applying to humans and all other life kinds.

What I'm saying is that from an ant's point of view, the existance of ant-kind is more important that the existance of any other kind. Same applying to humans and all other life kinds.

Yeah i got what you meant with that, but i was saying from a completely unbiased point of view... something neither ant nor human, which life matters more?

Yeah i got what you meant with that, but i was saying from a completely unbiased point of view... something neither ant nor human, which life matters more?

From a completely unbiased point of view (ie, from something other than an ant or human), the more important life is dependant on how each life form affects that point of view. I'm not sure where this is going. Is there a point you're trying to make?

The only thing I believe in is myself.

:eek: :sniper:

I always liked the emotes here.

From a completely unbiased point of view (ie, from something other than an ant or human), the more important life is dependant on how each life form affects that point of view. I'm not sure where this is going. Is there a point you're trying to make?

I was just trying to see whether you really believe that in essence humans are no more important than ants (to something neither ant nor human and intelligent)... which i think is what you're saying, may i also add that this view scares me

It is a need that i need.

Religion is an important Hierarchy to keep the masses down and why would you not want to worship something more powerful than yourself?

What i hear often from religious people is that without religion there would be no morality. That is however not the case. Morality is also based on reason, and reason doesn't require religion - in fact religion can be very unreasonable at times.

Well, the reason that religious people may think that they have a monopoly on morality is because they have an incentive to be moral. God tells them to be moral, and he also tells them that they will suffer for not being moral. Really atheists have no reason to be moral, their belief system makes little difference between dying in the arms of a paid "companion" from drug overdose and dying after a long life. I do not deny that atheists can be moral, the only question is why be moral if everything that you care about is nothing (no souls) ?

Well, the reason that religious people may think that they have a monopoly on morality is because they have an incentive to be moral. God tells them to be moral, and he also tells them that they will suffer for not being moral. Really atheists have no reason to be moral, their belief system makes little difference between dying in the arms of a paid "companion" from drug overdose and dying after a long life. I do not deny that atheists can be moral, the only question is why be moral if everything that you care about is nothing (no souls) ?
If you really believe that everything you care about is "nothing" without souls, I feel honestly sorry for you. If you think that there is no reason to be good without a spiritual cookie at the end of life, then I don't think I would trust you to hold my coat for me.

I tend to feel religious people are LESS moral because they believe they have an incentive...because most of them need that incentive. They aren't good because they like being good, or because they feel it is just the right thing to do, or because they value their honor for its own sake, they just want to get into heaven or avoid hell. They are just currying favor with a ghost in the sky, not actually internalizing what it is to be a good person for the sake of goodness.

I don't need any reason to be moral, because I enjoy being a good person; I am happy to be a helpful, respectful, honorable person, and my enjoyment is not contingent upon some afterlife or spiritual reward. I know that when I die I will simply end, and that doesn't in any way reduce my willingness to help and cherish the world around me.

If you really believe that everything you care about is "nothing" without souls, I feel honestly sorry for you. If you think that there is no reason to be good without a spiritual cookie at the end of life, then I don't think I would trust you to hold my coat for me.

I tend to feel religious people are LESS moral because they believe they have an incentive...because most of them need that incentive. They aren't good because they like being good, because they feel it is just the right thing to do, because they value their honor for its own sake, they just want to get into heaven or avoid hell. They are just currying favor with a ghost in the sky, not actually internalizing what it is to be a good person for the sake of goodness. I don't need any reason to be moral, because I enjoy being a good person; I am happy to be a helpful, respectful, honorable person, and my enjoyment is not contingent upon some afterlife or spiritual reward. I know that when I die I will simply end, and that doesn't in any way reduce my willingness to help and cherish the world around me.




Why are souls even being brought up? The existence of a soul has already been proven philosophically, and there is evidence suggesting it scientifically (I'll provide the sources soon).

Well, the reason that religious people may think that they have a monopoly on morality is because they have an incentive to be moral. God tells them to be moral, and he also tells them that they will suffer for not being moral. Really atheists have no reason to be moral, their belief system makes little difference between dying in the arms of a paid "companion" from drug overdose and dying after a long life. I do not deny that atheists can be moral, the only question is why be moral if everything that you care about is nothing (no souls) ?
With the same reasoning (which is basically none), they have absolutely no reason to not be moral.

It is in their own best interests to get along with the rest of humanity. Plus, doing nice things for others makes one happy. Those are reasons enough.

Look the whole heaven thing is not the most important thing at all. I also believe that if you are good just to get into heaven that you will not get in. But, the simple fact is that christians can often see themselves as the only moral people because a) God told them how to be moral and he told them that he wanted them to be moral and b) that there are rewards for following him and punishments for not, now a good person would accept morality only because of the first statement anyway. As well the whole thing about souls and morality is simple, morality usually has a purpose, christians want to follow their lord's will, but atheists don't have a reason. There is no good or bad in a world with only a material component, so murder is on the same level as ripping up paper for all it does if both have no souls.

If there is a god I personally hate the fucker. I hear religious folk claim that there is a purpose for everything. What is the purpose in a four month old baby being mauled to death by your neighbor’s dog that suddenly goes crazy? That all part of god's divine plan, hmm? And if this "god" is going to damn me to ETERNAL SUFFERING, never ending pain, for giving up faith over something like that, then I don't think I'd want to spend the afterlife with him anyway.
The "purpose" in it is not for the child, but for you.

Most religions tell us what is right or wrong. For example, in the Bible the 10 Commandments say that murder is wrong.

Most people would say that the relgion they believe in the the only true one, and its rules and guidelines would also be true.

If there is no creating force, a God for example, then there would be no right or wrong.

So can you only do a morally correct act if you beleive in a religion?

Can atheists ever say that their acts are right?

Ah but you see, inherently moral does not exist. Nothing is "wrong" nothing is "right". It is merely a social construct. Moral is whatever society (mom, dad, teachers, policemen) tells you.

If you believe what you do is morally correct, it is.

Ah but you see, inherently moral does not exist. Nothing is "wrong" nothing is "right". It is merely a social construct. Moral is whatever society (mom, dad, teachers, policemen) tells you.

If you believe what you do is morally correct, it is.

What do you mean doesn't exist? Moral is social and exists. Just because something is social doesn't mean something doesn't exist. Social may be personal and subjective and may stir up conflicts, but it completes human life the way physical science doesn't. Why is it that people view physical science as supreme and neglect the human sciences? That is just so... incomplete

Well doing good only creates happiness if one has a sense of morality as the pleasure comes from following one's own morals. As well there is definitely a cost to comply with the social order. Because if you were simply self-serving then it would be easier to just do whatever you wanted to get what ever you needed. Morality is not part of pure materialist beliefs as there is no reason to do it, it is a sign of progress and evolution but to a certain extent morality sort of requires some spirituallity(belief in something greater not necessarily God) to back up why you would do this because isn't atheism just believing that there is nothing beyond what is physically known?

What do you mean doesn't exist? Moral is social and exists. Just because something is social doesn't mean something doesn't exist. Social may be personal and subjective and may stir up conflicts, but it completes human life the way physical science doesn't. Why is it that people view physical science as supreme and neglect the human sciences? That is just so... incomplete

It seems I have chosen the wrong words here. Moral exist as a programmed package we get from society, there is no "universal moral". What I meant was, because of the relativity of moral itself, asking if only religious people can make a moral choice, is like asking if people who like chocolate icecream, are the only ones who know what icecream flavor tastes best.

You're only morally superior when everyone agrees with you.

Alright, I have read so many generalizations it makes me sick...

Yeah, "religious" people act in the way (or at least some of them try to, people arn't perfect) their religion wants them to, but usually it is not by threat of damnation or any other threat. That is just a bunch of bs that many people (not all) would like to think as true simply because it makes them feel as though their beliefs are superior in one way or another. Trust me, being "religious" doesn't really apply any pressure to your life at all unless you make it out that way.

As far as aethists (not sure if I spelled that right...) doing good things... why not? Anyone with half a brain can do what they think is right or what they feel is right, but two factors kinda limit in peoples' minds what an aethist can do as far as good goes. The fact that his or her views are based on experiences throughout life (like most "religious" people believe it or not) and not a plain outright outline of his or her beliefs. Without some sort of obvious foundation even the least paranoid or sceptical people can wonder why a person is doing something good and quesiton their motives. The other reason is the opinion of others, which applies to everyone. What is right in peoples' minds is not universal. For instance, in the US we have the social security issue. Some would say any action to secure social security for people my age (19) would be great, but others say that it will ruin it or have thousands of other reasons why not to tamper with it. There are always three views (at least) on every action: good, bad, don't care.

I would go on more, but I need to be going lol.

Alright, I have read so many generalizations it makes me sick...

Yeah, "religious" people act in the way (or at least some of them try to, people arn't perfect) their religion wants them to, but usually it is not by threat of damnation or any other threat. That is just a bunch of bs that many people (not all) would like to think as true simply because it makes them feel as though their beliefs are superior in one way or another. Trust me, being "religious" doesn't really apply any pressure to your life at all unless you make it out that way.

As far as aethists (not sure if I spelled that right...) doing good things... why not? Anyone with half a brain can do what they think is right or what they feel is right, but two factors kinda limit in peoples' minds what an aethist can do as far as good goes. The fact that his or her views are based on experiences throughout life (like most "religious" people believe it or not) and not a plain outright outline of his or her beliefs. Without some sort of obvious foundation even the least paranoid or sceptical people can wonder why a person is doing something good and quesiton their motives. The other reason is the opinion of others, which applies to everyone. What is right in peoples' minds is not universal. For instance, in the US we have the social security issue. Some would say any action to secure social security for people my age (19) would be great, but others say that it will ruin it or have thousands of other reasons why not to tamper with it. There are always three views (at least) on every action: good, bad, don't care.

I would go on more, but I need to be going lol. Well said, silver wolf.

Look the whole heaven thing is not the most important thing at all. I also believe that if you are good just to get into heaven that you will not get in. But, the simple fact is that christians can often see themselves as the only moral people because a) God told them how to be moral and he told them that he wanted them to be moral and b) that there are rewards for following him and punishments for not, now a good person would accept morality only because of the first statement anyway. As well the whole thing about souls and morality is simple, morality usually has a purpose, christians want to follow their lord's will, but atheists don't have a reason. There is no good or bad in a world with only a material component, so murder is on the same level as ripping up paper for all it does if both have no souls.
Atheists have a "good" and a "bad", because these things do not come from without, they come from within. They have minds, and will.

It seems I have chosen the wrong words here. Moral exist as a programmed package we get from society, there is no "universal moral". What I meant was, because of the relativity of moral itself, asking if only religious people can make a moral choice, is like asking if people who like chocolate icecream, are the only ones who know what icecream flavor tastes best.

You're only morally superior when everyone agrees with you.

So?

Atheists have a "good" and a "bad", because these things do not come from without, they come from within. They have minds, and will.

But where does "within" come from? Is within just from evolution? If it is, how can you trust your thinking? If it's just a "mistake"?

sorry if i'm not making much sense today, i can't find the words i want to use... :(

But where does "within" come from? Is within just from evolution? If it is, how can you trust your thinking? If it's just a "mistake"?

sorry if i'm not making much sense today, i can't find the words i want to use... :(

Partly they are instictive behaviour, partly they are behaviour observed in society and copied.

You would havt to go right back to the time when you were a very young child. Your parents, you family or any kind of social group you interacted with taught you what is good and what is bad. Very basically, bad is hurting people in any way, good is helping people in any way.
These forms of behaviour are vital for the survival of the social group, if the indidviduals in the group didn't adhere to them, there soon wouldn't be any group any more. You can observe behaviour and rules like this in any social group, they are not exclusively human.
Negative behaviour, for example hurting a member of your group without moral justification (punishment), will be punished by the group. The individual will get shunned and if he/she continues this type of behaviour, will be excluded from the group.
Positive behaviour (helping) will be rewarded with attention and in some groups social rank.

We learn those basic rules at a very, very young age as they are essential for our survival in the group; as a result, we don't act consiously on them but rather unconsciously and we react unconsciously as well if those rules are broken.

These moral rules have little to do with religion overall, but most religions tend to enforce them.

But where does "within" come from? Is within just from evolution? If it is, how can you trust your thinking? If it's just a "mistake"?

sorry if i'm not making much sense today, i can't find the words i want to use... :(
Don't sweat it. In our materialistic world, the language developed for such subjective concepts is discouraged (that be metaphor). Few people are versed in it.

"Within" doesn't have to "come from" anywhere; that is thinking in materialistic terms. I don't know what the physical explanation of the metaphysical (the mind/heart/soul) might be, or if it has one, but it's not really relevant, because the metaphysical is not the physical. It is our being, the "I", the part that sources actions for the body to execute. It is entirely conceptual.

I do believe "within" is a natural result of evolution, and therefore other life-forms have the capability to develop self-awareness at the level we have.

Why could you not trust your thinking?

Mistakes happen, we deal with them everyday.

We do not need organized patriarchal religions - which are more of a hindrance than a help in doing what is right, as evidenced by their violent and bloody histories.

Well, still no matter what the reason is for your morality to have started. There still has to be a reason why you continue to display morality, the simple fact is that the whole argument that it helps me to get along with society does not exactly work because being immoral is not exactly the same as being a jerk so society does not require you to be moral at all just to be nice and never get caught breaking a law. Ultimately for an atheist to have morality they must believe in some other philosophy that is probably to a certain extent as pointless, in a world made only of material, as christianity itself.