law.

Much cleaner and more sensible, with emphasis on outcomes and reduction of suffering.

Basic human decency and common sense

Morality is made by humans not by religion.

It’s conceptual, subjective, and largely relative. Morality is nothing without the human mind, it’s a concept, it does not exist in nature or universally. We think it up and have our own opinions, thus it is relative and purely conceptual. The concept of morality would/will die with the end of mankind.

Survival

Not the Spanish Inquisition

[deleted]

Actual morality, vice extortion.

That's a set of morals that can be reached, and quite likely people who don't like suffering will have to take you down.

So as not to be misconstrued, I’m pretty agnostic and have just been pondering this question and was interested in what others think.

You don’t have to downvote my question, it’s not a loaded question!!! I’m just wondering what everyone thinks!

[deleted]

It's a much better form of morality because it is done without any promise of a reward in heaven or threat of punishment in hell, since both of those places only exist in the imaginations of credulous people.

The idea that atheists are somehow less moral than believers is incorrect and downright stupid. There is absolutely no data to support the idea that atheists as a group are any less moral than any other randomly chosen group of people. In fact, just the opposite is true; for example, atheists are much less likely to wind up in jail.

It's a sad fact that people who hold these silly beliefs never stop and ask themselves if they have any data or facts to support those beliefs. Believers tend not to ever question their beliefs.

What is morality with fear of eternal damnation?

Is this your first day on the planet?

[deleted]

The simple answer is, "morality."

Religion is one of many structures of moral values, not the center of all of it.

Religion gives you a set of rationals for moral behavior. The alternative is making up the rules as you go along.

Religious teachings are a result of peoples mortality not the other Way around.

Man has an indelible moral character stamped on his conscience by the Creator - this much is true. Man does indeed have an inherent moral sense. That said, religion, and particularly the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, is absolutely necessary to fully understand and express the depths of morality, especially moral standards which far outweigh mere human conceptions of morality.

Morality is subjective to the society that creates them.

Dictated by the law

I untroduce you to the T. Hobbes!

Morality is really a communal thing. If you live amongst people who believe suffering should be increased, you'll not be viewed as morally reprehensible.

Do you think laws are made by moral people? That is the most dangerous thing you could ever say. In authoritarian hell holes it is required by law to rat out your own family if they engage in wrong think. Do you want to live in a country where laws like that exist?

I didn't expect that

Morality is a term to define the quality of behavior to things outside yourself. Religion can be a source of your moral construct but your moral construct can be created outside of religion. Other ways people regulate there behavior stem from experiences and weather they serve or hurt you. What seems valid stays and what doesn't goes. A person could have no religion and be moral. A person in a religion can be immoral.

It's a purer type of morality because it's not achieved/enforced by a fear of eternal damnation.

Nearly every religion has a version of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

Morality is easy for me in most cases. Would I like it if someone did that to me? If the answer is “no” it is likely hurtful and immoral.

[removed]

Do you think non-religious people and atheists are necessarily immoral? Or less moral than religious people?

People with no moral basis in religion conclude that morality is subjective. Which is wrong, it is very objective. No society or people past or present has ever tolerated a thief for example. No society has ever tolerated a murderer. There are things, more than the two examples I give, that are wrong universally whether people in this day tolerate them or not. And some people past and present tolerate other evils. That doesn’t change what they are.

Basically the same, but sourced from a different set of texts.

Something where people put thought into what is right and wrong instead of trusting some rules written however long ago.

Plus look at scientology. The guy believes in a space overlord that took aliens in airplanes to earth and then nuked them and the foul spirits must be purged from our body.

Most religions are stuck in the past. Also so many rules are broken that it makes following the rest just silly.

Why is a God that tormented a dad into thinking he had to kill his own son moral? Why did he torment Job?

Counter Question. How do you religious folk explain how we survived (aka didn't kill, cheat and steal) before your religion was invented? We must've had a set of priciples to facilitate cooperation though the millennia, otherwise we would've perished. I'll wait.

Actual morality.

Social animals have the capacity to coexist. Wolves can live together without killing each other and they don't have religion.

More objective. Id argue that as we learn more about our minds through neuroscience and psychology, we can make better moral claims about human well being. A good example are LGBT rights over the past 100 years as we have understood sexuality through genetics and psychology as opposed to sin.

No religion is vastly better than getting morals from people 3000 years ago. Or whenever depending on which god you prefer.

“Be excellent to each other.”

Made by yes, followed by without, hardly. Look at the shitshow outside our windows.

A good conscience#

Right, and most societies have been based around religion around the world.

If you need a god to tell you to be a good person, you are not a good person

​

If you only thing keeping you from raping and murdering is the fear of punishment from Sky daddy...you are not a good person.

​

Morality in the absence of religion is....empathy? Not wanting to harm others?

This is the best explanation

Oh, like the various religious groups around the world are so well known for even following their own definitions of morality consistently?

That's a great question and one that I've been thinking about on and off for some time now.

I think that a question needs to be asked first: if a Catholic and an atheist both do the exact same action, say, feeding and clothing a homeless man, is one action more or less moral than another? I've found that there's different levels to this. On one hand, the morality of the action done by both parties has the same intrinsic moral weight: a homeless man was fed and clothed. This is objectively good.

Then we have to turn to motivation. I would argue that doing this out of a desire to love thy neighbor as prescribed by Christ and, in doing so, try to imitate the perfection of God while seeking the highest possible good (in salvation) that the action holds a higher moral weight than the atheist doing the same action.

Some atheists would disagree and insist that the situation is reversed and that the religious person's actions would have less weight since they're acting out of obligation and thus are less sincere, but I find this assertion to be baseless and out of touch with reality. No truly religious person is doing good deeds that they don't want to do solely because of selfish reasons. It just doesn't happen amongst devout people.

All of that is to say that, yes, I think truly religious people (and specifically those who are part of Christ's Mystical Body on earth) are fundamentally more moral than an atheist due to the fact that a religious person's aim is the highest possible good: the salvation of their own souls firstly and then the salvation of their neighbours.

Laudable for its own sake, rather than performed in order to secure eternal life...

LMAO. Looking out my window, it seems that some of the least moral people around are the ones that are the most vociferously religious.

The Bible talks about how God wrote morals into our design. Lots of evidence for this in my opinion.

You have no morality if you need a book to tell you what is right or wrong.

You have no morality if it's only fear of god/hell that keeps you from doing the wrong thing.

You have no morality if the idea of heaven or salvation is the carrot that gets you to do the right thing. Santa claus for grown-ups.

Most people ought to be able to figure out the "golden rule" - treat others as you wish to be treated. You don't need a religion for that, you are deficient if you do.

This person preaching Jesus has to be a troll in this day and age. Morales are like any form of evolution. It benefits you to be kind to others as it increases your chances of them being kind to you. It helps the survival of the species. We have evolved to "feel good" helping (dopamine). By helping others, we help ourselves which helps us to continue as a species. Even if you don't personally have kids, it is better for your own well being and survival to be "morale".

I'm curious if morality exists apart from mankind inventing it; for example, would murder potentially be considered acceptable? I mean, there's something innate in humans that instantly perceives certain things or actions as immoral when they hear about them.

That cannot be merely humanly conceived, religion or no religion.

Essentially this is the contrast between Existentialism and most religions.

The founders of the U. S. Constitution eliminated religion from our govt. structure. They knew history and that religion offers only a distorted view of true morality. They knew that morality is determined BY THE PEOPLE, not by religion or a Bible. I think the ‘table’ of moral truth has 4 legs; individual experience, history, science and continual respectful dialogue.

The bible also talks about Adam and eve being the first humans and there's a mountain of actual evidence against that.

The bible also talks about Noah and the flood but once again it is contradicted by our reality.

Depends. Religion was really a scheme to molest children and make money this whole time and ALOT of people fell for it...I have no following statement.

>No society has ever tolerated a murderer

Murder is the unlawful killing of someone. But the law, which is often guided by religious morality has been, and still is, widely different from place to place.

Murder means different things to those of different religious/cultural moral structures, therefore showing clear moral subjectivity.

Not to mention stuff like some cultures giving women equal treatment and others strictly controlling and limiting their abilities.

Moral objectivity only exists from a very, very wide angle for broad subjects with little nuance.

It's not that mankind "invents" it, as if everyone gathers around a table and talks out what is moral and what isn't, it's that we evolved as social/tribal animals, whereby empathy was evolutionarily advantageous, which is why most of us have an aversion to things like murdering people, hurting others, etc. We see senses of empathy/"morality" even in lab mice.

Yes, it is conceivable/possible that humanity could continue to evolve, and somehow lose our social/tribal instincts, thus no longer naturally find murder to be wrong to do, but I would highly doubt that would ever happen.

On it's own, morality is humanity's attempt at creating a ruleset for society that promotes cooperation for survival, rather than a society that thrives on power and influence exclusively. Religion ultimately twists this for control over its worshipers in the worst cases, which is pretty ironic.

We're uniquely capable of contemplating the consequences of our actions thanks to the sheer luck of having complex brains. Working with your neighbor on a hunt, rather than fighting him to steal his captured game, would likely be more beneficial in the long term. Nothing about the content of our collective morality is special, but more or less convenient, and the things we think are "bad" could have ended up as "good" if they had worked out favorably.

Lol as if religions aren't made up.

Bible also says way can rape women and still make it to the holy kingdom by paying her father in silver and marrying her. So….MORALITY

If God wrote morals into our design, why do humans disagree so much on what is moral and what isn't? Wouldn't we all universally agree on every moral issue?

No, there's really not any evidence pointing against either of those things. The Great Flood was not a worldwide event. But it did happen.

Adam & Eve being the first humans does not go against the theory of evolution.

Murder is definitely acceptable to some people in some circumstances - I would have no moral issue killing a stranger if it's the only way to stop them from killing someone I love.

I understand not everyone has that same viewpoint, but these are decisions we make as people, it's not like there's a quantifiable objective truth when it comes to morality.

Then you two would disagree. What else are you looking for in an answer?

Right, and with major monotheistic religions that are obsolete, morals are changing to be more excepting. Ironically, those religions that teach inclusivity are usually the ones populated by bigots and morons.

>Man has an indelible moral character stamped on his conscience by the Creator - this much is true.

Then why do humans disagree so much on matters of morality? If morality is written into us by God, wouldn't all humans universally agree on every moral topic?

[deleted]

What evidence? Elaborate

No, because I didn't say that humans are inherently fully conscious of the full breadth and width of objective morality and what that actually entails.

Evidence? Like.. do you find evidence of god in our ADN? There is no evidence, there is faith

>Adam & Eve being the first humans does not go against the theory of evolution.

Yes, it absolutely does. Given evolution, there is no such thing as "the first two humans from whom all others descend."

As humans evolved from our ancestors we share with gorillas and bonobos, etc. - by the time there were two people in existence, there were TONS of people in existence, all having more humans. Not just two.

>The Great Flood was not a worldwide event. But it did happen.

I can't believe you actually believe the nonsense about collecting two of every animal aboard a giant boat. Like how the fuck does a human brain still think that.

> It just doesn't happen amongst devout people.

> a religious person's aim is the highest possible good

So essentially your entire argument is that religious people are doing the 'better' job solely because they're religious. Surely you must see how silly this is?

But we do often consider murder acceptable already. A lot of soldiers in wartime are religious, for instance, and the death penalty is not the sole work of athiests.

>Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.

Lol.... Guess God was just lying

Adam and eve being the first humans doesn't go against the theory of evolution lol? So Adam and eve were born from prehuman parents and then god plucked then out of their tribe and put them in Eden? This is why religious people hate education, it directly contradicts their beliefs.

Ethics! And it’s an important topic because it is impossible to be ethical if your morality comes from an authority like religion.

If your morality comes from an authority such as religion, then all it takes is for you to be convinced that a heinous act against humanity and society is the will of god. Terrorism, slavery, treating women as property, etc, all happened because a holy book (The Bible and the Quran) said it was ok.

Ethics, or true morality without authority, demands that we treat each other with excellence simply because it is the right thing to do. It spreads love, happiness, and joy. Why? Who knows, maybe it’s an evolutionary trait showing how humanity chooses to survive, through cooperation and community. Or maybe it speaks to some deeper nature of reality, as if love itself is a fundamental force of the universe.

I would never trust someone who believed morality came from religion or an authoritative god character. They have proven time and time again that their morality is a thinly veiled excuse for control, abuse, prejudice, hatred, and violence.

We’re not talking about laws and enforcement, you just agreed with me that murder is the unlawful killing of someone, and that no society has tolerated it because they draft laws around it.

>It just doesn't happen amongst devout people.

Who is devout? Truly? There's no way to know. And thus there's no way to know what motivates religous people more: a true love for their fellow humans or a fear of eternal damnation. When you have a carrot and stick, it's impossible to truly say which motivates people (more). In fact, if either of them is the motivator that's not a win for religion either.

Whereas with atheists, there is no promise of heaven or hell.

>a religious person's aim is the highest possible good: the salvation of their own souls firstly and then the salvation of their neighbours.

Most religions claim we are children of God. Right? And most of them preach love. If as you say, a religious person's aim is the highest possible good, how do you square that with all of the violence and death that's been done in the name of religion? And usually by the most devout religious people. After all, the casual Christian who goes to church only on major holidays is not running around killing people in the name of Jesus. It's the hardcore, devout religious people that do it. It's the Catholic priests who were raping altar boys. It's the Canada churches who were forcibly trying to rid indigenous children of their culture and upon whose church grounds bodies of innocent indigenous children have been found.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1012100926/graves-found-at-new-site-canadian-indigenous-group-says

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2021/06/24/bodies-found-indigenous-school-canada-240926

Now you may say atheist also commit atrocities and you'll be right. My point is that there is no morality credit to be automatically given to religious people.

Humans being created 6000 years ago is wildly against the theory of evolution. There is little evidence of even localized severe flooding, never mind flooding that covered the highest mountain tops

Maybe I'd be able to see how silly that is if I actually said that but being that I didn't, I don't.

It's not being religious that makes one virtuous. Being a part of a false faith does not make one virtuous. Being nominally religious doesn't make one virtuous. Man, even being a part of the one true Church doesn't inherently make one virtuous.

I don’t think religious people can possibly be truly moral, since everything they do is out of promise of reward and fear of punishment

Text does not necessarily indicate a global flood. One which covers only the known world for the author would suffice.

Yep, the theory of evolution is fully compatible with the doctrine of our first parents. Adam and Eve were the first ENSOULED humans, not necessarily the literal first two hominids to ever exist on the face of the earth.

Then what is it you said? Because that's all I'm seeing here.

Morality that doesn't have a deciding figurehead.

> The idea that atheists are somehow less moral than believers is incorrect and downright stupid. There is absolutely no data to support the idea that atheists as a group are any less moral than any other randomly chosen group of people.

inb4 somebody points out the actions of atheist dictators, fallaciously focusing on body counts by a small handful of atheists rather than the actions of each individual atheist on Earth on average.

Being unable to read the soul of another person has no bearing on what that person's motivations may or may not be. I am very clearly not saying that a person who is nominally Catholic but acts only out of self interest and who is apathetic to the wants and needs of other is more virtuous than an atheist on the basis of them being nominally religious.

No, not all or even most religions are "children" of God. There is one true Faith on the face of the planet.

Finally, you're factually wrong in that last paragraph. The percentage of wars caused by religion is something around like 5%, if I remember correctly. The amount of priests who commit these crimes is around 3%, which is the lowest percentage of any group on the planet, being significantly lower than public school teachers, sitting at around 7-8% of a SIGNIFICANTLY larger number of people. In 2018, there were THIRTY cases against the Church in America, and only 8 were even substantiated in a court of law. Whereas in public school, there were millions. Of course even 8 is too high, but it is literally the lowest rate of sexual abuse on the face of the earth.

Finally, the "mass graves" thing is a myth and has been debunked time and time again. The residential schools were run primarily by protestant churches and the Canadian government and you'll find that the Catholic-run schools were regularly requesting aid because they lacked the means to take care of a populace of children who were getting ravaged by deadly diseases. The children were then buried in individual graves all marked with crosses.

Not one person in this entire thread has mentiomed humanity being 6,000 years old one single time. This is the definition of a strawman.

Once again the Bible is contradicting you. I like how when the Bible contradicts you you just make up a fan fic of what the Bible really means but when it doesn't contradict you it's taken as literally as possible.

Religious people are a joke. Bye

> People with no moral basis in religion conclude that morality is subjective. Which is wrong, it is very objective. No society or people past or present has ever tolerated a thief for example.

Thieves tolerate thieves. There are entire organizations of organized thieves.

I don't think you know what the terms "subjective" and "objective" mean. Even if it were true that all humans find thievery to be wrong, that still doesn't make it an issue of objectivity.

Every action done by every person all day long is done with a mind for potential reward or potential punishment. It is quite literally unavoidable, down to the most secular of cultures.

Fairness is a product of moral judgement - we determine what is morally right, and what is morally wrong.

With that in mind, consider this: Scientists have discovered, through an inequity aversion task, that animals are able to detect unfairness and wrongful actions: https://www.oipa.org/international/animals-sense-of-fairness

Acting in such a way that you are actively pursuing your own salvation, the salvation of your neighbors, and the furthering of the Kingdom of God on earth is inherently better than not doing so.

So God "stamped moral character into our conscience" but just half-assed it, or what? Why wouldn't he make us fully conscious of the full breadth in his stamping?

I know that this is a vague and simplistic thought, but society to me was developed as an agreement between people that boils down to i will not kill or threaten you and yours if you promise not to kill or threaten me and mine.

Morality is nothing more than thinking and actions that help to uphold and maintain this agreement. We feel a need to take care of people so that they do not slip below the threshold to where they will do whatever it takes to survive. We are nice to people so as not to create enemies that now have motivating to threaten our survival.

As an agnostic and borderline atheist this line of thinking makes sense to me. Nowhere else in nature will you find a family of animals that cares about the survival of outsiders. We are the same but with the added benefit of a frontal cortext that allows us higher level thinking to create a social structure that goes beyond out family.

I think that we would find very quickly how low on our hierarchy of needs “morality” is if society started to crumble. We would do whatever it takes to make sure ourselves and family survives to see the next day.

I realize that this is too simplistic and a macabre thought to many people, but it is what makes sense to me.

This is not how i experience this human experiment, but it is the only way that i can rationalize the concept of morality in the absence of religion.

I still am respectful to people and truly want the best for others. I donate my time to charity and feel gutted if i see people in pain or struggling. But in the back of my mind i know that this privilege to experience and honor these feelings goes away if society begins to unravel.

What do you guys think?

This is such a weak argument, much like when people protest the existence of God on the basis of bad things happening in the world.

The Bible says Adam and Eve were created 6000 years ago, that’s why it’s the year 5783 in the Hebrew calendar, the years since creation.

And since Romans 5 makes it quite clear that the sole reason for Jesus’ sacrifice was Adam’s sin, and we know Adam and the garden didn’t exist, we can safely conclude that Jesus wasn’t resurrected either (as if we needed an actual reason to not believe a ridiculous claim that was made without evidence in the first place)

If an atheist gives his money or food to a homeless person, what reward is he expecting? What orders to be a decent person is he following? What punishment is he fearful of?

Sounds like you might be a sociopath if you only do things out of self-preservation without caring about others.

Did you mean to reply to someone else? You didn't address my question at all.

Your limited understanding of the single hardest book ever written to comprehend doesn't make your point more valid.

Let's presume that you're right. It is an absolutely licit position to hold that Adam & Eve were the first ENSOULED humans in a long line of hominids going through the process of evolution. Changes quite literally nothing about the timeline.

Strawman. This presupposes that every action done by a religious person is guided by a scrupulous compulsion to follow some mandatory guideline, enforced primarily or exclusively under fear. This is false.

Sounds like you might be a sociopath if you're so unwilling to engage with your peers that you willfully misrepresent me so egregiously that you accuse me of doing something that I've disavowed several times.

I didn't address your question because it's not a real question.

In any case, these dictators were not motivated in any way by their atheism. Their atheism didn't enter into the equation and as you pointed out, they represent a tiny fraction of atheists worldwide.

And it could be pointed out that there has been lots of evil done in the name of religion, such as the Albigensian Massacre which was a military and ideological campaign initiated by Pope Innocent III against the Cathars in France. And Hitler was a Xian; the German Werhmacht (Nazi military) wore belt buckles reading “Gott mit uns” meaning God is with us on their belt buckles.

... I don't even know what to respond to such a blatant demonstration of my point. Good luck out there.

Side question: if avoiding eternal torture hinges on believing this book, then why did god make it so unbelievable? Or as you put it: “difficult to comprehend”?

To my main point: the Bible did not say “the universe was created 14 billion years ago, the earth was formed 4 billion years ago, microbiological life formed in the ocean, where it replicated and evolved over billions of years to eventually become land based apes, where at a certain point god decided to give these apes divine souls and made them humans”. The Bible said god created the heavens and the earth, and created man on the sixth day. Man got deceived by a talking serpent, god got angry, and from those two people came all civilization less than 6000 years ago.

Cognitive Dissonance like this is the reason Bronze Age myths have survived so long. People are so desperate to hold onto their ancient beliefs, that as science continues invalidating them, they come up with increasingly complex explanations to hold onto their faith. FYI I was raised an evangelical christian and have read the Bible several times so I do in fact know everything the Bible says and why it says it

God bless you, brother.

Religion, at least according to the Bible, has no problem with rape, incest, and slavery. I favor the kind of non-religious morality that frowns on those things.

First, the Bible is not the sole rule of Faith for Christians. It shouldn't be. Christians who believe that it is are in error.

Secondly, the Bible is not a scientific book. Not that it is opposed to science, but that it is not concerned with science. That is not the POINT of Scripture.

Yes, it makes sense that a heretical and schismatic group of Christians led another unfortunate soul away from God. Protestants are fond of doing that, sadly.

If a person believes in an authoritative god who will either reward them with a blissful eternal afterlife or torture them for all eternity based on the decisions they make here on earth, then we can never truly trust their motives to be genuine can we? They’ll feed a homeless person or donate to charity all because they think it will raise their chances to get into Heaven and avoid hell, not because they wanted to do something good for the sake of it. They’ll also execute a gay person, hang a suspected witch, or vote against equal rights for the same reasons

Strawman after strawman. Adios.

The Bible does say it is the ultimate and final authority (Acts 17:11, 1 Corinthians 4:6, Mark 7:6-9, Revelation 22:18-19)

The Bible is very often opposed to science. It makes claims of creation, events, miracles, and resurrections all without evidence. This is antithetical to science, which requires evidence to prove a claim, especially such a grand claim of eternal torture, and the salvation from it. Every single biological and cosmological process has been observed without divine interference. The universe looks exactly as it would look if there was no god.

From the outside, all christian denominations are just pointing fingers at each other, failing to point the finger at the Bible that contradicted itself, made false promises, and threatened them eternal torture if they didn’t convince themselves of such unprovable nonsense.

You can’t just say “strawman” over and over again, you have to actually explain why I’m wrong and you’re right in order to win people over

No, it does not claim ultimate and final authority. Scripture did not even exist for the first 4 centuries of the Church's existence. Scripture is PART of Sacred Tradition, not the other way around.

No Biblical contradiction exists. You look for scientific argumentation: none exists. Every detail about the Faith is in perfect harmony with whatever truth about the universe exists that we would find from scientific inquiry.

Lol you got a long way to go if you think the Bible doesn’t contradict itself AND is compatible with science. I wish you well on your journey to deconstruction from brainwashing and childhood indoctrination.

Yeah, but I'm done talking to someone who is so intellectually dishonest and manipulative.

Deconstruction of false spirituality is what led me to the one true Faith and profession of belief in Jesus Christ.

I would argue that humans vastly agree more than they disagree when it comes to morals. Murder, theft, lies, indecent business practices, insubordination, etc. all very common amongst nations and cultures. The disagreements are in the nuances but get the most attention.

(Copied from above) I would argue that humans vastly agree more than they disagree when it comes to morals. Murder, theft, lies, indecent business practices, insubordination, etc. all very commonly illegal or not decent amongst nations and cultures.

This is "evidence" for a common moral code in our design. That is all.

How is "why wouldn't he make us fully understanding of morals" not a real question? Just because it's causing you discomfort that you can't think of an answer?

And you think that this is god’s sway in his creation and not an evolved trait from us being extremely social pack animals?

Oh, and also, that isn’t evidence. Not even close to it.

> Adam and Eve were the first ENSOULED humans, not necessarily the literal first two hominids to ever exist on the face of the earth.

So what happened to all of the other hominids who were the same species as Adam and Eve? Did they all just suddenly die? Or did they stop reproducing, or what?

There are HUGE disagreements about human life itself: Abortion, death penalty, assisted suicide, "stand your ground" laws, war, on and on. These aren't small issues.

And even if it were only small issues we disagree on, why would we disagree at all, if God wrote morality into us?

Theory: "humans have fairly common morals" (as described in the Bible)

Evidence: "humans have fairly common morals"

Not small issues, I agree, but different definitions of murder that satisfy a person's benefiting point of view. For arguments sake, the Bible talks about that too. Titus 3, sermon on the mount, etc.

Just plain old morality.

This also makes great sense to me as well. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

yes im telling..

Sure, your non-religious morality allows for none of that? What morality would that be?

I’m not religious