My cat knows when she's done wrong. A monkey can tell when it's receiving unequal treatment. An ape knows when another ape is cruel and should be shunned. I don't see where anyone gets this idea that it even requires a moral code—let alone an unassailable divine one!—to live a moral life.

Don't get me wrong, it can help to have morals more easily communicated and enforced by codifying them in human language. But the idea that a moral standard must be something so ultimately perfect or else it completely doesn't exist at all is just loony! One of the worst false dichotomies common in religion; and it doesn't make sense.

I prefer the atheist who strives to be moral because they choose to over a Christian who does out of fear of a vengeful God or eternal damnation. No one is going to scare me into being moral. Also, confession and redemption can be a good and powerful thing but not when it is used as a blank check to do evil and get away with it. I am sure that's not how it is supposed to work

Yes, but mine are not based on bigotry or ignorance and hate. My morals are a set of ethical guidelines based on respect and an understanding of humanity.

Albert Einstein said that if people are good so they can go to heaven and not hell, what a sorry lot we are. People are good because it's the right thing to do not because of any deity telling them they should. The bible is the most "unmoral" book ever written!

Firstly, one must determine that there is a definite right and wrong. Who's to say which side of the coin is "right"? Is there a right? Assuming we are referring to our society's version of moral codes and laws, then absolutely. Atheists simply do what is "right" because of our obligation to act apart of society for the betterment of humanity.

Of course we do. As far as I'm concerned, most atheists are actually MORE moral than any believer. We do good, for the sake of doing good. Not because we're looking to score points with some sky-daddy, or trying to keep ourselves from being sent to hell. Besides, if you look at the behavior of most believers, they're hypocrites. Where's the morality in hypocrisy?

How can someone actually think or even believe that you need an invisible being to have morals? Who comes up with this shit! What kind of crazy train are they on! Yes, they try to justify their actions and hide behind the fucking bible to do it. Look at the abuse in churches and the excuses keep on coming. None of these people are good deep down.. they are cruel & have no morals to begin with.

Morals are religious claims. Accordingly Atheists have no morals. Ethics are the organized guidelines of conduct for professionals and Atheists who would take no action towards others that we would not want taken upon us. Ethical humans don't rape as the bible instructs believers to rape. We ATHEISTS don't rip open the bellies of pregnant women dash little ones against the stones as do believers of their bible morals. Ethics is a conscious process test for decided action. Only Atheists read bibles and reject morals there while believers make excuses and more often fail to read their genocidal misogynistic pornographic anti-science insane book.

Back in 1987 Jim Bakker and another preacher, John Wesley Fletcher raped Jessica Hahn and then bragged about it in their sermon without actually saying what took place. Later Hahn was given a $279,000 pay-off for her silence. Reporters from The Charlotte Observer exposed the abuse and Bakker resigned.

At the time I had a fundamentalist friend who swore that Bakker was being persecuted because he was “a Christian.” This was just another nail in the coffin of my religious beliefs. I sincerely hope that the flurry of hypocrisy that we see daily help a lot of people that are like I was then,to see the truth about where morality lies.

Religious people think they can do whatever they want & be "forgiven". I have to answer to a higher power. Myself.

Religion was an evolutionary step. Morals are necessary for the continuation of the species. An organism doesn't violate it's own morals without facing the consequence of extinction. People exiisted before religion, therefore morals predate religion.

The concepts of "right" and "wrong" for each of us are most likely based on how we would feel on the receiving end of any given action or circumstance. I don't think that has to be taught to any of us. It certainly doesn't need to come from any divine source.

For the benefit of humankind morality should be subject to questioning, reason, scrutiny and science. In essence, we should intellegently design it. I would argue that this is the basis of true morality, and not 'I behave this way so that I don't go to hell'

Religion , especially Christianity and Islam do not have the monopoly on ethics and morals.

The only "morality" that is ever needed is the so-called golden rule. It defines ideal human behavior more simply and succinctly than anything else I've encountered.

Yes, I think so. As a matter of fact, I think if you have to need any form of holy text book to help you make decisions right and wrong, I’d have to be more worried for those kinds of people. Religious people take advantage of the fact they will always be forgiven while atheist have no higher power to expect to wipe away their wrong doings.

Of course we do. Our moral codes are not based on fear. I think non-religious people are more moral than religious people as we don't use god's will as an excuse for immoral behavior.

I often hear religious folks say things like, "the only thing that stops adults from committing murder, rape, and theft are the consequences" meaning jail and Hell. That terrifies me. I simply don't have the desire to harm people because I respect life and other people's pursuit of happiness. It's crazy to me that people actually believe this. That they need a sky daddy to punish and forgive them. I wouldn't forgive myself if I harmed another person.

First thing first - Moral is a strictly subjective thing. There is no such thing as "universal moral".
The could be "universally accepted moral" - in general the average of the personal morals of the members of a given society.
Person A would precept person B's morality based on to what degree the person B moral convictions match these of Person A.
Thus there is not such a thing as an immoral person (religious or not) there are people whose morals do not match ours.
As per me - every set of morals is fine as long as it does not include harming other people (except in defense/self defense) or animals(for needs other than survival).

Morally speaking, I am who I am and that alone is good. I know not to kill for pleasure, or if I feel pleasure in killing then I also know this is twisted and If I do not know that there is no moral code that will alter this. It is merely evolution of our species, that is all

I’ve just finished a great book titled “The Righteous Mind.” It is a fascinating look at oral psychology, and how people came to have the moral beliefs that we have. Many of our moral instincts have an evolutionary basis, like for care of the weak, for fairness, loyalty, disgust. But our culture and experiences shape how those instincts are expressed today. Religion has its own application and interpretation of most of these, but is definitely not necessary for morality.

I agree with you, @Sarahroo29. Atheists and morals are not mutually exclusive. Just as Christians and morals are not synonymous.

Morality is really just a series of ideas regarding how we treat each other. I would agree that it doesn't require religion to exist. Many people were taught growing up that morality comes from god. Now we all know that there are a lot of folks that use religion to justify evil acts. And yes there are also people who do a lot of charitable things as well in the name of their religion (like my dad for instance). I wouldn't stand in the way of these kinds of people from doing good things even if they claim that it was religiously inspired. But I would make the point to them that there are a lot of non religious people who do good things too.

yeah.

It seems to me that inherent in the nature of man there is an innate sense of morality that has a direct basis in the laws of cause and effect. As John Start Mill more or less stated, a man is free to swing his fist but that freedom ends where another man's nose begins....