the moral chicken and egg

[This_person]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

i never said it was separate from god, only that it exists without religion.

religion is not the cause of morality being the point

And, do you realize that the study you posted isn't even claimed by the researcher to say what you're saying it says?

"Morality" is based upon fundamental "rights" and "wrongs". What makes something right, and what makes something wrong, are rooted in religions. Religions are the foundation that make up the rules for what is right, and what is wrong.

Now, I know a lot of "nice" atheists, that do things that are beneficial to others. But, without a moral foundation, they're doing it not for "moral" reasons, but for reasons of their own.

Do you see the difference?

[Xaquin44]

Originally Posted by This_person

And, do you realize that the study you posted isn't even claimed by the researcher to say what you're saying it says?

"Morality" is based upon fundamental "rights" and "wrongs". What makes something right, and what makes something wrong, are rooted in religions. Religions are the foundation that make up the rules for what is right, and what is wrong.

Now, I know a lot of "nice" atheists, that do things that are beneficial to others. But, without a moral foundation, they're doing it not for "moral" reasons, but for reasons of their own.

Do you see the difference?

Religion OR society.

Do you really think that without 'god' no one would do nice things?

also, everyone does things for reasons of their own. No exceptions.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Xaquin44

Religion OR society.

I'm not following you. What would be society's foundation for what is right and what is wrong?

Do you really think that without 'god' no one would do nice things?

Actually, I posted just the exact opposite of that.

also, everyone does things for reasons of their own. No exceptions.

Right. The difference being what those reasons are based upon.

See, "morals" come from "right" and "wrong". Nice actions are just that. It's a semantics/definition kind of thing. "morals" have a basis, a foundation, a set of rules that come from something other than thin air. "Nice" is nice, but not moral.

[Xaquin44]

Originally Posted by This_person

Actually, I posted just the exact opposite of that.Right. The difference being what those reasons are based upon.

then what is the problem?

[tommyjones]

Originally Posted by This_person

And, do you realize that the study you posted isn't even claimed by the researcher to say what you're saying it says?

"Morality" is based upon fundamental "rights" and "wrongs". What makes something right, and what makes something wrong, are rooted in religions. Religions are the foundation that make up the rules for what is right, and what is wrong.

Now, I know a lot of "nice" atheists, that do things that are beneficial to others. But, without a moral foundation, they're doing it not for "moral" reasons, but for reasons of their own.

Do you see the difference?

Religion and morals are not the same thing, nor do morals come from religion.

Aethist have a moral foundation, they just dont have a religious one.


morals are what make up right and wrong according to YOU.

religion is what determines right and wrong according to god. (the one you have choosen)

do you see the difference?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

Religion and morals are not the same thing, nor do morals come from religion.

Aethist have a moral foundation, they just dont have a religious one.


morals are what make up right and wrong according to YOU.

religion is what determines right and wrong according to god. (the one you have choosen)

do you see the difference?

Let me see if I can make this more clear:

mor·al mawr-uhl
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.


See, morals are not about society's rules, custom, "nice", legalities. Morals have a foundation in fundamental priciples. Society makes rules like laws and customs, not morals.

I'm saying it's a semantics thing. It's a definition thing. You can believe an atheist is acting morally, but then you're putting some religious standard on to how the atheist is acting. You can say the atheist is acting "good", and now you can put society's standard on how the atheist is acting.

Am I clearing it up?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Xaquin44

then what is the problem?

No problem, really. It's a nit-picky kind of thing.

Atheists do not act within "morals", because they don't have any. They have society's rules of conduct, but those aren't "morals". That doesn't mean they act incorrectly, just not out of morals.

[Xaquin44]

those are two different definations.

[tommyjones]

Originally Posted by This_person

Let me see if I can make this more clear:

mor·al mawr-uhl
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.


See, morals are not about society's rules, custom, "nice", legalities. Morals have a foundation in fundamental priciples. Society makes rules like laws and customs, not morals.

I'm saying it's a semantics thing. It's a definition thing. You can believe an atheist is acting morally, but then you're putting some religious standard on to how the atheist is acting. You can say the atheist is acting "good", and now you can put society's standard on how the atheist is acting.

Am I clearing it up?

i dont see religion ANYWHERE in that definition...... so no, you are not making it clearer, you are muddying the waters.

morals do not come from religion, in fact, your definition suggests that laws and religion come from morals

[fredcaudle]

"morals do not come from religion"

So, religion did not come from man either? I mean if man made religion did he not also make morals - and isn't this man's combination of both???? (I don't believe what is being siad, I'm just trying to follow what is being said here by a couple of the posts.)