It's fairly easy to have a good, consistent morality without belief in a supreme being/supreme beings and an objective morality. All it takes is empathy - the ability to understand that others have feelings and thoughts like you do, and that they should be treated by you the same way you'd want them to treat you. That there's no difference between whether it's you hurting them or them hurting you. Then just a little nudge more by the realization that not everyone likes and dislikes the exact same things.

At that point, it's very easy to treat others with fairness and respect. A morality based on that is a very good one. It won't cover all issues, but then again, there isn't an existing one that does.

If you are only following a morality because of the threat of punishment, whether here or in a theoretical afterlife, then you aren't a moral person. True morality is not killing because it's not right, and not just because of fear of jail or hell.

I think there may be some confusion as to what morality and what religious is.

Morality is defined as;
A moral discourse, statement, or lesson
A literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson.
A doctrine or system of moral conduct.
Particular moral principles or rules of conduct
Conformity to ideals of right human conduct
Moral conduct.

Religious is relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
A religious person
Religious attitudes.
Of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances.
Scrupulously and conscientiously faithful.
A member of a religious order under monastic vows.

To sum up; the religious take vows and practice a faith, whereas morality does not involve a deity.

Once in adult Sunday School* the question before our group was something like, "What do you have to believe if everything else is gone?" The answers were interesting, and sometimes surprising. My own answer was, I have to believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Even more than a belief in God, I need to know that there is a good we should strive toward and an evil that must be recognized and resisted. I have always felt that way, though I admit that my ability to do both was sharpened when I became a Christian. I didn't have what you'd call a particularly religious upbringing; honestly, the moral lessons I remember best as a kid were the ones I got from my Batman and Superman comics. ("Batman is cool. Batman believes in truth and justice. Therefore truth and justice must be cool, too." Hey, it worked.)

*It's like regular Sunday School, only with booze and porn.**

**I'm KIDDING! Sheesh.

God does not exist, I aspire to achieve moral behaviour. So I find the phrasing of the question to hold a false assumption.

If God were to exist (I'll skip the idea of proving existence; Thomas Aquinas dealt with that before me), would I change my moral stance? That's a good question, actually. If you are moral because you fear retribution (divine or otherwise), are you truly moral, or just afraid? Does a Western-style God, who demands you behave according to His standards OR ELSE, even deserve obedieance? Or is He more like a spoiled three year old?

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.