Morality and religion

Oh yes, I don't deny that, but then that is the only way we can, whether it be from the morality our parents taught us or the morality of our peers. We don't have an inbuilt one. We were never designed to have that.

So the choice of morality is never our own. We can never choose for ourselves?

The point is not in where you learned about a principle, but *why* a person chooses to follow it. An atheist follows the principles they've learned about even though they believe their personal outcome will be exactly the same regardless. This is not true for a Christian.

Yes, when I left Christianity, it wasn't due to my free will, it was because my name hadn't been written in the book of from from the beginning. So I was damned way back then, and without any possible hope. Talk about running up a blind canyon.

That's not where I'm going with this TPT, but the point is taken.

I agree. If you knew there was no heaven or hell would you care about what good or bad you've done?
I think you can. There is an internal moral compass but religion tends to blind people to it.
I care about how I treat people, I know the difference between what is morally right and what isn't and don't consider myself a religious person.

Yeah I just wanted to point out the blind canyon you end up in following circular logic.

And actually we do have a moral system built in. It's called empathy, it is hardwired into our brains through mirror neurons. The "golden rule" is based on empathy, and is found in various forms in nearly every moral guide system in the world.

Yes. That would be correct.

Not necessarily the good or bad you've done, but yes, the good or bad you do. Morality is driven by people, of all beliefs, desiring good order, which is best provided the more or if all have it. Anarchists and despots are the flies in the ointment, not atheists.

I must disagree with that. Following the golden rule is motivated by enlightened self-interest. We are our own number 1s, but es-i says we are all equal and are all #1s as well.

PT's corollary to Enlightened self-interest: We can't love anyone more than we love ourselves. If we dislike ourselves, the best we can feel about others is nothing.

I've gotta join TPT here, empathy is a strong motivator, self interest can easily override empathy. I'm going to go right out on limb here with no proof whatsoever and say empathy may be a stronger motivator in women than men.

No proof, no examples, just a suspicion.

True. But my point was not that self interest doesn't exist, but rather to counter the claim that people have *no* built in moral system. We are not purely selfish hedonists without an external crutch like the bible. We do have built in systems that make us thinks about and feel the pain, suffering, or happiness we cause others.

Without some moral instruction in the reasons behind the Golden Rule from family and peers, teaching and reasoning the equal rights of all, do we not revert to the Lord of the Flies scenario?

Most religions have a form of the Golden Rule, buried under an avalanche of their own self-serving subjective "morality"--what I call subjective virtues.

Not really.

1st, in the lord of the flies you can assume that all the children had moral instruction (they had clearly come from a religious boys' school).

2nd, the lord of the flies presents a greed or lust for power by some. Initially, in the story the boys do follow their teachings and try to set up a moral or at least law abiding society... the lust for power of Jack (I think it was Jack) was what brought the down fall.

3rd, moral instruction is just the human version of following the rules of the pride, pack or heard... in order for the species to survive.

4th, there are many examples in nature of animals taking care of each other... animals that have (it would seem) no religion and no "moral" instruction. African buffalo come to mind... the herd will unify to protect one animal, when it might seem like a good idea to flee the approaching lions.

(If that went off topic... sorry... )