But that doesn't mean they are moral, that just means they follow certain rules. If you think such rules exist, create laws. Where's the need for god (or even a belief in god) there?
How are we free to act as we please if we don't believe in god/that morality comes from god? Can you give me one practical example?
Logically, you can't really justify the enforcement of morality unless you have an accepted social contract. In that scenario, you will always have a minority that is oppressed.
Do you believe the 613+ commandments in the Torah offer such a framework?
What do you mean? I'm not sure what "such a framework" you are talking about.
Because someone does not derive their morality from a deity, it does not mean they act as they wish. This is also contradicted by all the atheists that live good and moral lives, and by all the people who believe in God and are very immoral. Not saying atheists are more moral, saying the belief in God has nothing to do with how moral the person in question is.
I didn't say that. In essence, I'm saying that without a God, I can logically justify "immoral" behavior. With a God, the rules are the rules and they don't change and therefore immoral behavior is not justifiable.
Logically speaking it is simple to solve that by stating that the greater benefit justifies lesser harm. Studies have shown though that it is not always what we do.
Still i think it is a logical choice that one CAN make. We cant force people to be moral and i think it is an illusion to think (as some do) that religion would enforce them to be moral.
I agree that we cannot force people to be moral (well, we can, but it's not necessarily justifiable). However, I think that with religion, it is easier to justify forcing moral behavior. For instance, I can justify to myself that it is OK to kill someone that is trying to kill an innocent person. If I am walking down the street and see Johnny trying to kill Sally and Sally is screaming "No! Please! Stop it Johnny!", under those circumstances I could religiously justify to myself the need to kill Johnny.
However, if I were an Atheist , I don't think I could find a logical self-justification for stopping Johnny by killing him, or even by using force, and still remaining consistent with my moral system.
I think my point is in the area of self-justifying. I feel that in a Non-Theistic system, it is difficult to be consistent with what you believe and enforce morality at the same time.
For instance, someone said "Whatever harms someone else, that is bad." So it would be bad to kill Johnny to stop him from murdering Sally. Even if good results.
Whereas for me, my religion provides a law in which we are permitted to kill someone who is trying to murder an innocent person. Therefore if I do so, I am still consistent in what I believe in.
As for the first part.
Well i propose the anthropic principle here.
Think of it this way. IF we had been a species without morals, then we wouldnt actually still exist. I argue that a species where murder, theft and rape is not only tolerated but even seen as good will get extinct.
Moral values, especially helping those that are next to you are essential to the species survival. In a world where one cant survive alone it is important to get the assistence of others which in turn expect your assistence. This is especially valid for family and small tribes where one sees and depends on the other every day.
Notice that i spoke about harming or benefitting "others".
The initial biological and evolutionary moral steps include as "others" only "others from amongst your kind". Classically we have an "ingroup" versus "outgroup" behaviour. And this can be found in scriptures as well with the group of the believers (adhering to the same religion) always being treated and regarded differently from the others.
In my version of morals however these "others" have become "all others" as humanity in my view has expanded beyond tribes and family.
I can agree with that.
In any case however the real question is a different one:
"Does it come from God or not?"
If it doesnt come from him then one shouldnt believe it does.
If it comes from him then surely one should believe it does.
Indeed. I believe that religious systems of morality (generally) are morally superior and more complex systems then one that is based on "Whatever harms someone else is evil, whatever helps someone else is good, and the rest s neutral."
