Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Napoleon Bonaparte, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Kim Jung Il, Kim Jung Un, Fidel Castro, Benito Mussolini, and countless others.
Those men have plenty of differences, but what's the one thing all of them have in common; they were all atheists.
And yes, I know Christians have been responsible for some horrible crimes, like the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Westboro Baptist Church, but those dwarf in comparison to the heinous crimes committed by atheists. When you compare the total body count of atheists and the total body count of Christians, it's not even a fair comparison, atheists blow our number away several times over.
“If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”
You don't need religion to be moral, and you don't need to be moral to have a religion, but the two have influence over each other. To deny that is to pretty much deny reality. We do not exist in a world were all aspects of life are completely separate and have no impact on other aspects.
Many of our current day laws are dependent and inspired by religion. Christianity specifically. The freedom slaves was greatly due to religion and the fact every man is equal in the eyes of God. If there is no God, then why does anyone follow any moral code? If there was no God and if I die then I will just cease to exist, that means I wont feel guilt, I wouldnt suffer any consequences or feel anythign for that matter. So morals would go out the window because I would just want to live the most pleasurable until I died. However there is a God hence Morals.
I feel horrible that humans judge moral decisions based on religon. Think of the crusades and how countless people died just becaquse their corrupt version of cristanity told them so ( and i need more words so) ducks ducks ducks ducks ducks ducks ducks ducks ducks ducks ducks ducks ducks
People define their morality in their religion. It's a lifestyle that guides you on how to treat others.
However, there are (or at least should be) people who don't need a religion in order to treat other people with respect and morality. Religion doesn't automatically mean morality. There are plenty of murderers and rapists who'll take on the Christian name or do something agreeably messed up in the name of God
Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, where you are taught certain Morales and values ascribing to said religion. The definition of religion definitely sums up this question, as religion is supposed to teach Morales and values and guide you on a path towards a higher plane of purpose understanding and ultimately the afterlife in most cases.
Yes no doubt absolutely correct yes no doubt absolutely correct yes no doubt absolutely correct yes no doubt absolutely correct yes no doubt absolutely correct yes no doubt absolutely correct yes no doubt absolutely correct yes no doubt absolutely correct NO DOUBTEDLY SURELY OBVIOUSLY OF COURSE . . . .
Morality is always for the benefit of a group. We all have various groups we belong to and our morals coincide with what is better for those groups. For most people, religion is one of their groups. What is better for that religion must be moral and what is counter to the religion must be immoral. Many religions combine groups to encourage their own group morals. For instance, if we look at the ten commandment. Not killing, stealing, etc is better for humanity so things like this are common in most religions. Religion want people to associate what is good for humanity with what is good for their religion, that is why other commandments deal directly with worshiping their god. Thing is, there is also a contrast with morals about outside groups. If you read further in Exodus, you can see where it claims to justify killing. Because killing others outside the group, benefits the group, it is seen as moral. If we look at the conquests of the bible, we can see how they often involved killing entire cities and taking their possessions, justifying mass murder and theft. There are also cases where all but the virgins were to be killed and they would be forced to marry the unwed soldiers. Basically justifies rape. Because these were good for the group, they were considered moral actions.
Some state cases like Hitler. Tho Hitler was publicly Christian and used Christian theology in his messages and tactics, his actual belief is debatable as evidence shows that the SS was against most if not all common religions. Thing is, it still had to do with what is better for the group. Instead of a theistic group as in religious justifications, the idea was it would be better for the Aryan Germanic people, therefore any action against those not of Aryan Germanic people or against them was justified.
Sure, morals do have a relationship with religion but that goes for moral acts towards the group and justification of acts that others may find immoral. In other words, being religious is not a moral high-ground but often an excuse to commit otherwise immoral actions.
Clearly there is a relationship as Religion usually comes with a defined set of moral standards. However, the question is poorly worded and I don't think that is what it is asking.
As to whether religion is a prerequisite for morality, well that's a confusing question because morality is subjective. It is certainly possible for an atheist to not believe in a deity and still adhere to the code of a religion's followers for whatever reason.
This is kind of like asking "Is it possible to be a law abiding citizen without acknowledging the Government?" Is it fair to claim you are a law abiding citizen if you only follow laws you agree with? Maybe in your own mind. However, this is the problem with applying absolutes to subjective things.
Religion is a major source of moral teachings and lessons for many individuals.
While not all moral people are religious and not all religious people display morality, there is still a relationship between the two concepts.
Religion, even for atheists, is where many people first learn of morality by deciding for themselves what is right or wrong.
Everyone has there own morality and because there are people who are on the other side just proves my point ferther.
If you do not believe me, go and ask this question to 10 or more people. "If there was your dog which you love and a neighbor which you hate, but there is only enough time to save one. Which do you choose to save?"
I promise you will get answer for both side.
You shouldn't need religion to tell you whether murder is bad or not. (If you are a decent person at least). Nor should religion have to constantly remind you that you should help others in need. Besides, religion isn't all about the positive. Many, if not most religions tell women to be pushovers. It's also a bad thing if you only do good things to get into heaven, rather than just because it is the right thing to do. The misconceptions about Atheists being monsters... Make me laugh. Sure, we have committed plenty of crimes over the course of history, but so have Christians and every other religion. As a matter of fact, there was a religious survey conducted on the federal prison population. 0.07% were Atheist, 17% didn't have a religious preference, 52.7% were Christian. The survey didn't include other religions, but the point is clear nevertheless. Theists are equally guilty as Atheists for having bad morals. Yes, EQUALLY. We are all just human beings. Believing in a God(s) doesn't automatically make you a better person.
Morality shouldn't be linked with religion or whatsoever. I'm a Christian, but I don't believe that there should be a relationship. First of all, our source of morality comes from the parents. No parent would teach their child anything they think will be bad for their children. Second, environment. If the child's environment is simply good, then the child will be brought about 'good' as well. It depends in the environment on what kind of influences will the child take. It also with the environment what kind of friends they will make, and so on. It depends on the child's upbringing by these two factors.
There are many different moral belief systems, and not all of them involve a deity. But practically every religion has something to say about morality. It's conceivable you could have a religion that doesn't, that just describes "God" or "Gods" but doesn't have them commanding anything and doesn't suggest anything about what we should or should not do, but if such religions exist they must be rare.
If morality is universal than there cannot possibly be a relationship between morality and religion. Either virtue is something arrived at by the process of logic or it is the arbitrary whim of subjects. Religion from God is in the latter category. Religionists claim that virtue is whatever God arbitrary determines to be virtue. This is not true morality though. This is just moral subjectivism with the added threat of the divine.
Real morality (even if you believe in God) would be that virtue and vice are things determined by the constraints of logic and virtue is just part of God's nature.
Morals are behavior patterns we learn very early in life by observing the adults. Ethics are the societal rules we learn later in life. That is why we sometimes feel the urge to do things which we consider wrong. The fact is we don't really believe they are wrong but we know society does.
For one thing, Humans certainly were capable of morality before religion. Sure, you can find religion incorporates morals in the occasional verse of the holy book, but that makes it much more of a spreader, a publisher for the book of morals, with human conscience being the writer. Morals don't belong to religion as much as credit for the book doesn't belong to the publisher.
Religion can be a base for your morals, sure. I believe morality comes within the person. You can't force morality just like you can't force religion. Lets say you walk in on your significant other having an affair and you act drastically and shoot them both. I know for damn sure if i was involved with religion i woulda still bust a cap in both of em. I sound crazy, but hey who isn't on the internet. I recently read a book about sociopaths and they are very fascinating people. They don't have many emotions as the regular human would. It's not because they chose not to possess those traits, its because they were made without them. In a way i believe this connects to a persons morals just as much as a persons emotions connect to them.
Morality must be internal! It must come from within! You must act upon what feels right--if you simply adopt morals due to fear, or pressure from an external source, than they are reduced to rules.
Rules are cold, rigid, and literal, while morals are very elusive and ever changing/ evolving.
How many innocent, good people were murdered in the Crusades? We've had good people without a religion, or of a religion differing from our own, do great things and be successful. Andre Carnegie and Mark Zuckerberg, to name a few, are atheist and are doing quite well for themselves. Carnegie was notorious for giving back to the community as well. Morality and success is independent of religious following.