Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Inigo Wrote:One argument goes as follows (this argument does NOT establish that moral instructions are those of a god, but it gets us on the way):
1. Morality is composed (at least in part) of instructions and favourings
2. Only an agent - something minded, something capable of believing and desiring - can issue instructions or favour something
3. Morality is composed of the instructions and favourings of an agent (or agents)
Premise 1 is non-negotiable. I'm just defining what I'm talking about. If you mean something else by morality - if you are talking about something that doesn't instruct or favour - then you're just not talking about what I am talking about.
Hah, I love it! Try this one for size:
1. The universe goes through motions according to the big crunch theory.
2. Something eternal doesn't require a creator.
3. The universe wasn't created by an agent.
Premise 1 is non-negotiable. I'm just defining what I'm talking about. If you mean something else by "the universe" - if you are talking about something that doesn't follow the pattern of the big crunch - then you're just not talking about what I am talking about.
Inverse No True Scotsman. I like it. You should copyright that one. And you're also begging the question at (1), but since it's "non-negotiable" then, by god, you've got a solid proof for your wacky moral theory!
No but seriously, your posts are awfully fallacious.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
July 8, 2013 at 2:28 pm (This post was last modified: July 8, 2013 at 2:35 pm by genkaus.)
(July 7, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Inigo Wrote: Why do you keep suggesting I am making a 'god of the gaps' type case? That's bonkers. I'm not arguing like that at all. You're simply displaying a kind of prejudice - you're assuming that if someone has argued for the existence of a god they just 'must' be committing some kind of fallacy.
The argument is quite straightforward. It is that something we experience - morality - is composed of the instructions and favourings of a god.
Our experience may, of course, be a hallucination. It is if atheism is true. But our moral experiences provide defeasible evidence for a god.
I presented my argument in the form of some deductively valid syllogisms. That means you HAVE to deny one or more of the premises to resist my conclusion. It isn't enough to dislike it.
One argument goes as follows (this argument does NOT establish that moral instructions are those of a god, but it gets us on the way):
1. Morality is composed (at least in part) of instructions and favourings
2. Only an agent - something minded, something capable of believing and desiring - can issue instructions or favour something
3. Morality is composed of the instructions and favourings of an agent (or agents)
Premise 1 is non-negotiable. I'm just defining what I'm talking about. If you mean something else by morality - if you are talking about something that doesn't instruct or favour - then you're just not talking about what I am talking about.
Premise 2 seems solid to me. After all it is absolutely certain that agents can issue instructions and favour things - for I am one and I can do those things. And nobody has yet come up with an example of a real instruction that has no agent behind it as a source. Indeed, it seems quite apparent then whenever we discover that there is no agency behind some apparent instruction that the instruction is, well, merely apparent and not real.
Here's where you go wrong on both premises.
Your first premise is correct. What you understand by it, is not. Morality is composed of instructions and favorings. That does not mean that it instructs or favors. We are talking about the same thing. A system of ideas containing instructions and favorings regarding our actions and behavior. To deduce from "contains X" that is "does X" is deductively invalid.
Second premise goes wrong on the following point. The issue and the acquisition of an instruction are two different things. An instruction can exist which has both an issuer and an acquirer, but it doesn't require both to be an instruction. To consider the snail on a map analogy, even if a snail accidentally spells out the words "here there be gold" on a map, a map-reader will acquire an instruction of "go here for gold" even though there is no intelligent being issuing it. The instruction may or may not turn out to be correct, but it is an instruction nonetheless. Here the instruction is formed as a result of combining a fact with the receiver's own desires and beliefs. Similarly, the instruction "don't touch the fire" would be the result of a fact (fire burns) and your desire (not to get burned). You don't need an agent to issue the instruction.
Which is your conclusion should be, "morality is composed of instructions and favorings by an agent or for an agent or both".
(July 7, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Inigo Wrote: The second argument goes as follows.
1. Moral instructions have inescapable rational authority (they are instructions that anyone to whom they apply has reason to comply whatever his or her ends).
2. Only the instructions of an agent who has an immense amount of control over our interests in an afterlife would have this feature.
3. Moral instructions are the instructions of an agent of the kind described in 2.
Premise 1 of that argument articulates a conceptual truth about morality. I am happy for someone to dispute it, but I want to see their evidence that it is false (there's stacks that it is true).
Premise 2 - well, challenge away. But so far as I can see satisfying this condition does require positing a god and an afterlife. There seems no other plausible way of doing it.
Premise 1 is wrong and the existence of many, many moral instructions without any inescapable rational authority behind them proves it. For example, here's a moral instruction for you: "You should send me all your money". It has all the features of a moral instruction as argued in the previous argument. It is a favoring, issued by an agent (me), to an agent (you).
You never established that a moral instruction by definition must have a justification for it - much less a rational and inescapable one - therefore, this is a moral instruction. Your response to this has been that if it doesn't have a rational and inescapable justification, then it is not a moral instruction - which is a classic example of begging the question. The fact is, as we see in moral instructions everywhere, having a rational inescapable authority behind it is not and has never been a requirement for an instruction to be a moral one. That is not a conceptual truth about morality and your saying it doesn't make it so.
Premise 2 is wrong because, as we've also seen in the previous argument, there doesn't need to be an agent issuing the instructions. Even if a particular, hypothetical morality had an inescapable, rational authority behind it, that could just as easily be a law of nature. It doesn't even require a existence of afterlife. If a hypothetical law of nature was that you'd feel guilty and tormented every time you commit a certain kind of act, then the entire system of morality would be built by the the fact of this law and your own desire not to feel guilty or tormented. This would be just as rationally and inescapably authoritative as your hypothetical agent.
Another problem is your conception of what it means to be "rationally inescapably authoritative". You assume that such an object, be it a law of nature or a vengeful agent, would create a reason that you have to comply with regardless of your personal desires. But that's a pipe dream to begin with. Any such reason is conditioned upon your own desires to begin with. The reason provided by your vengeful god is conditioned upon my desire not to be tortured in afterlife. The reason given in karmic morality is conditioned upon my desire not to suffer in the next life and the reason given in biological morality is conditioned on my desire not to feel guilt or torment. Such conditions are not inescapably compelling. Which means even your own morality does not give us a reason to comply regardless of our own ends. If providing an inescapable reason to comply was a necessary feature of moral instruction, then even your own moral instructions wouldn't qualify.
(July 7, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Inigo Wrote: This still doesn't establish the existence of a god. But what it does do is establish that our moral sense data is defeasible evidence for a god. And it establishes that morality and atheism are incompatible. Not moral sensations and beliefs- those are perfectly compatible with atheism - but those sensations constitute a hallucination if atheism is true, and the beliefs are all false if atheism is true.
You're not entitled to have this argument fail. You're not entitled to there being some error in it. Be open minded and follow reason, not fashion.
Given the utter and complete failure of your arguments, moral sense data is not defeasible evidence for god. Given that our moral sense data could refer to man-made morality, morality derived from natural law or karmic law, I'd say that it is completely compatible with atheism.
(July 7, 2013 at 5:30 pm)Inigo Wrote: A Karmic universe that lacks any god in it does not contain morality.
Yes it does.
(July 7, 2013 at 5:30 pm)Inigo Wrote: Morality instructs and favours.
No, it contains instructions and favorings. I've explained the difference to you many times already. What it contains does not imply that it does or doesn't do anything.
(July 7, 2013 at 5:30 pm)Inigo Wrote: That's absolutely essential to it. And a law of nature - or supernature - does not instruct or favour. How can they? They are not agents. They have nothing they want you to do. They are just descriptions of what happens. THey enable us to make predictions (or can do). But they don't make the predictions, we do!
And those predictions, when combined with our own desires, lead to the creation of morality. We are the agents who interpret the instructions based on our own desires.
(July 7, 2013 at 5:30 pm)Inigo Wrote: This simple point destroys the karmic view. Morality's instructional nature is essential to it, and the Karmic view cannot capture it. So it doesn't even get out of the starting gate.
It can - and does, if it has agents with personal desires derive those instructions based on karmic law.
July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm (This post was last modified: July 8, 2013 at 5:23 pm by Inigo.)
(July 8, 2013 at 7:53 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:
(July 7, 2013 at 1:44 pm)genkaus Wrote: Really? Then I guess you'd also say that the decline in number of pirates isn't the cause of global warming.
Well yeah.
I'm only gonna address certain points because I have come into this argument late and honestly some parts of what you said simply do not comprehend. I'm not sure if that's a failing on my part or yours.
(July 7, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Inigo Wrote: One argument goes as follows (this argument does NOT establish that moral instructions are those of a god, but it gets us on the way):
1. Morality is composed (at least in part) of instructions and favourings
2. Only an agent - something minded, something capable of believing and desiring - can issue instructions or favour something
3. Morality is composed of the instructions and favourings of an agent (or agents)
Premise 1 is non-negotiable. I'm just defining what I'm talking about. If you mean something else by morality - if you are talking about something that doesn't instruct or favour - then you're just not talking about what I am talking about.
My head's starting to hurt already.
(July 7, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Inigo Wrote: Premise 2 seems solid to me. After all it is absolutely certain that agents can issue instructions and favour things - for I am one and I can do those things. And nobody has yet come up with an example of a real instruction that has no agent behind it as a source. Indeed, it seems quite apparent then whenever we discover that there is no agency behind some apparent instruction that the instruction is, well, merely apparent and not real.
Still don't see what you're getting at, here...
(July 7, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Inigo Wrote: The second argument goes as follows.
1. Moral instructions have inescapable rational authority (they are instructions that anyone to whom they apply has reason to comply whatever his or her ends).
2. Only the instructions of an agent who has an immense amount of control over our interests in an afterlife would have this feature.
3. Moral instructions are the instructions of an agent of the kind described in 2.
Premise 1 of that argument articulates a conceptual truth about morality. I am happy for someone to dispute it, but I want to see their evidence that it is false (there's stacks that it is true).
Premise 2 - well, challenge away. But so far as I can see satisfying this condition does require positing a god and an afterlife. There seems no other plausible way of doing it.
This still doesn't establish the existence of a god. But what it does do is establish that our moral sense data is defeasible evidence for a god. And it establishes that morality and atheism are incompatible. Not moral sensations and beliefs- those are perfectly compatible with atheism - but those sensations constitute a hallucination if atheism is true, and the beliefs are all false if atheism is true.
You're not entitled to have this argument fail. You're not entitled to there being some error in it. Be open minded and follow reason, not fashion.
Ok, I'm just gonna cut through the red herrings and fling up a wikipedia article quote because apparently you think morality is something that it isn't.
Quote:The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to the Sociocultural evolution of different peoples of humanity. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly sociobiologists, believe that morality is a product of evolutionary forces acting at an individual level and also at the group level through group selection (though to what degree this actually occurs is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory). Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved "pro-social" emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors. Conversely, it has been argued by other biologists that the humans developed truly moral, altruistic instincts.
On this understanding, moralities are sets of self-perpetuating and ideologically-driven behaviors which encourage human cooperation. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining immediate selfishness in order to improve their evolutionary fitness. Human morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism that could undermine a group's cohesion and thereby reducing the individuals' fitness. On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness). Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behaviour such as inbreeding.
The phenomenon of 'reciprocity' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, some vampire bats fail to feed on prey some nights while others manage to consume a surplus. Bats that did eat will then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984) Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce (2009) have argued that morality is a suite of behavioral capacities likely shared by all mammals living in complex social groups (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elephants, dolphins, rats, chimpanzees). They define morality as "a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups." This suite of behaviors includes empathy, reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, and a sense of fairness. In related work, it has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts. They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics' prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip and reputation management.
Ok, so...in the face of evolutionary scientists bringing forth this evidence that makes a lot more sense, your arguments that commit the logic fallacy of begging the question ring very hollow and your statement that "Atheism is not compatible with morality" rings about as hollow as my schizophrenic room-mate's claims that 500,000,000 people are out there specifically hunting for him for the sole purpose of killing him and that they tell him so via forum posts wherein they ban him from rap battle websites for posting images of baby gore porn.
Try to form a coherent argument without begging the question and jumping to conclusions based on presuppositions, and then I'll take you seriously when you use the word "reason," alright? You're trying to make morality something it isn't. You yourself have no evidence of your own claims and then you demand I must reject them. Well, ok, I reject them. I reject them on the grounds that they come from the natural imperatives of natural selection and social dynamics that has resulted from us evolving as a very socially-reliant species. That's a reason that makes MUCH more sense than your claims that "morality must come from an agent" and that there is a god responsible for creation and a goddess responsible for benevolence. You have no proof of either of these claims so your entire argument rings hollow from that point onwards, anyways. Everyone else may want to rise to dismantling your points everywhere but I'll stick with just demolishing the foundations to let the rest crumble.
I'm not even going to read a quote from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written by people like you. YOu might as well quote your diary at me or show me the picture you made at school with a potato and some crayons.
But I can tell already that the quote above is referring to the development of moral phenomena, not morality itself and so is completely beside the point.
Anyway, you admitted that you had trouble understanding my arguments and wondered whether the problem was with you or me. It's you.
If you found those arguments difficult to follow then I'm afraid you fall below the threshold level of intelligence needed to engage in profitable debate and you should resign from this discussion at once.
(July 8, 2013 at 10:15 am)FallentoReason Wrote:
Inigo Wrote:One argument goes as follows (this argument does NOT establish that moral instructions are those of a god, but it gets us on the way):
1. Morality is composed (at least in part) of instructions and favourings
2. Only an agent - something minded, something capable of believing and desiring - can issue instructions or favour something
3. Morality is composed of the instructions and favourings of an agent (or agents)
Premise 1 is non-negotiable. I'm just defining what I'm talking about. If you mean something else by morality - if you are talking about something that doesn't instruct or favour - then you're just not talking about what I am talking about.
Hah, I love it! Try this one for size:
1. The universe goes through motions according to the big crunch theory.
2. Something eternal doesn't require a creator.
3. The universe wasn't created by an agent.
Premise 1 is non-negotiable. I'm just defining what I'm talking about. If you mean something else by "the universe" - if you are talking about something that doesn't follow the pattern of the big crunch - then you're just not talking about what I am talking about.
Inverse No True Scotsman. I like it. You should copyright that one. And you're also begging the question at (1), but since it's "non-negotiable" then, by god, you've got a solid proof for your wacky moral theory!
No but seriously, your posts are awfully fallacious.
My arguments are deductively valid. So if you think they are fallacious that instantly makes you someone who doesn't know what a 'fallacy' is.
THe argument you presented didn't make sense. THe conclusion didn't follow from the premises. It is like this one:
1. Turnips taste horrible
2. Today I must go to a meeting
3. Therefore fix the cupboard
Just moronic. You need to leave the thinking to other people.
Quote: You're just not addressing my argument or any of the points that I made in that reply to you.
Saying 'morality is a word' is just silly. There is a word 'morality'. But morality itself is the thing the word is being used to refer to.
But you're calling morality a thing then saying I'm being instructed by a thing.
Ok so how did this thing instruct me of the things that are wrong or right, when did the thing instruct me, and what about the seemingly plausible things which I mentioned which are where I believe I have got my sense of right or wrong from?
And when i say it's just a word I mean this directed towards normative morality which you keep on mentioning, it is used to describe morals which every reasonable person would have, but this is totally flawed because it does presuppose the existence of a supernatural being who can detect what is truly right or wrong or what is reasonable.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: I'm not even going to read a quote from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written by people like you. YOu might as well quote your diary at me or show me the picture you made at school with a potato and some crayons.
Ad hominem? Nice.
(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: But I can tell already that the quote above is referring to the development of moral phenomena, not morality itself and so is completely beside the point.
Only if you can establish that there is no causative link between existence of moral phenomena and morality itself. Otherwise, it is very much to the point.
(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: Anyway, you admitted that you had trouble understanding my arguments and wondered whether the problem was with you or me. It's you.
If you found those arguments difficult to follow then I'm afraid you fall below the threshold level of intelligence needed to engage in profitable debate and you should resign from this discussion at once.
Your arguments aren't hard to understand, they're just wrong.
(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: My arguments are deductively valid.
No, they are not.
(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: So if you think they are fallacious that instantly makes you someone who doesn't know what a 'fallacy' is.
Or someone who can identify a fallacy when he sees one.
(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: THe argument you presented didn't make sense. THe conclusion didn't follow from the premises. It is like this one:
1. Turnips taste horrible
2. Today I must go to a meeting
3. Therefore fix the cupboard
Just moronic. You need to leave the thinking to other people.
Strawman? Interesting. Is there a particular list you consult when deciding which fallacy to commit?
July 8, 2013 at 5:48 pm (This post was last modified: July 8, 2013 at 5:51 pm by Inigo.)
(July 8, 2013 at 2:28 pm)genkaus Wrote: Here's where you go wrong on both premises.
Your first premise is correct. What you understand by it, is not. Morality is composed of instructions and favorings. That does not mean that it instructs or favors. We are talking about the same thing. A system of ideas containing instructions and favorings regarding our actions and behavior. To deduce from "contains X" that is "does X" is deductively invalid.
Second premise goes wrong on the following point. The issue and the acquisition of an instruction are two different things. An instruction can exist which has both an issuer and an acquirer, but it doesn't require both to be an instruction. To consider the snail on a map analogy, even if a snail accidentally spells out the words "here there be gold" on a map, a map-reader will acquire an instruction of "go here for gold" even though there is no intelligent being issuing it. The instruction may or may not turn out to be correct, but it is an instruction nonetheless. Here the instruction is formed as a result of combining a fact with the receiver's own desires and beliefs. Similarly, the instruction "don't touch the fire" would be the result of a fact (fire burns) and your desire (not to get burned). You don't need an agent to issue the instruction.
Which is your conclusion should be, "morality is composed of instructions and favorings by an agent or for an agent or both".
It doesn't matter whether one says 'morality instructs' or 'morality is consists, in part, of instructions'. The conclusion is the same. Morality either 'is' a person or is the instructions of a person. Either way a person, an agency, a mind, is implicated. That's why I'm not particularly bothered which one I go for and don't mind which one I use as a premise. For what is undeniable is morality's instructional nature that is motivating the need to posit an agency of some kind.
You can talk about ideas 'containing' instructions all you want. You either mean by it 'morality consists, in part, of instructions' or you're just confused (I don't know what you're saying, anyway).
At some point that 'instruction' cheque needs to be cashed. At some point one is going to have to show how a real instruction can come into existence. I have a method that is tried and tested - an agent issues it. YOu, it seems to me, do not.
Anyway, you talk about the snail. In case someone suggests snails have beliefs and desires (and who knows, they may) let's talk about the tide arranging stones on the beach instead (that way we won't be derailed by side issues). As the tide goes out the stones, purely by coincidence, spell out 'go away!'. Is that an instruction? It appears to be. But it isn't, is it? Be honest, upon discovering how the stones have been arranged you would not, for one moment, continue to think you were really being instructed to go away, would you? Be honest. Someone who did we would think was attributing agency to the ocean or mother earth or some such.
Morality instructs (or, if one prefers, is composed of instructions). But they are real instructions. IF they are merely apparent instructions then that is just another way of saying morality doesn't really exist. There 'appears' to be an instruction not to disembowel people for fun - but there isn't really, there are just blind natural forces that produced brains that give people the impression that there are such instructions out there.
THe only way morality can really exist is if its instructions are real ones. And the only way its instructions are going to be real ones is if they are issued by an agent.
Before you became a theist because of moral instructions did you come up with this theory sooner when you were getting instructions to eat food, or when your body was instructing you to breath?
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: I'm not even going to read a quote from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written by people like you. YOu might as well quote your diary at me or show me the picture you made at school with a potato and some crayons.
Ad hominem? Nice.
(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: But I can tell already that the quote above is referring to the development of moral phenomena, not morality itself and so is completely beside the point.
Only if you can establish that there is no causative link between existence of moral phenomena and morality itself. Otherwise, it is very much to the point.
(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: Anyway, you admitted that you had trouble understanding my arguments and wondered whether the problem was with you or me. It's you.
If you found those arguments difficult to follow then I'm afraid you fall below the threshold level of intelligence needed to engage in profitable debate and you should resign from this discussion at once.
Your arguments aren't hard to understand, they're just wrong.
(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: My arguments are deductively valid.
No, they are not.
(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: So if you think they are fallacious that instantly makes you someone who doesn't know what a 'fallacy' is.
Or someone who can identify a fallacy when he sees one.
(July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: THe argument you presented didn't make sense. THe conclusion didn't follow from the premises. It is like this one:
1. Turnips taste horrible
2. Today I must go to a meeting
3. Therefore fix the cupboard
Just moronic. You need to leave the thinking to other people.
Strawman? Interesting. Is there a particular list you consult when deciding which fallacy to commit?
I think you get some kind of perverse thrill out of using your stupidity to annoy people.
(June 30, 2013 at 6:50 pm)Inigo Wrote: But it does not follow that morality itself exists, for morality is not a sensation or a belief. it is the thing sensed, the thing believed. To believe an act to be wrong is to believe the act has the attribute of wrongness. One has the belief, but whether the act really has that feature - indeed, whether such a feature exists at all - remains an open question.
Anyway, here was the though that first set me off doubting atheism. Morality is normative: it instructs, favours, commands. It is not enough for it to appear to do these things. A morality that does not instruct or favour or command is no morality at all. Morality actually does these things. This seems to be a conceptual truth about morality. Yet, for the life of me I find it hard to conceive of how anything other than an agent could do such things.
No, I disagree with you. Morality may instruct one to do something, but it does not require an invisible agent to do it. Humans and other animals make their own morals that they think up themselves. That doesn't require a god to tell you what is right and what is wrong. Not all Christians have the exact same morals, and the same can be said about other religions, as well as Atheists.
inigo, your morality was brought to you by your parents, your society, your genes...
My morality was brought to me by my parents, my society, my genes.
Both these moralities are similar, mostly because the genes are similar, as well as the society.
But in other parts of the world, the moral thing would be to obliterate any other human from a different tribe, because such human is, most likely, a threat to your tribe. This would go against your morality and mine... nut not against theirs.
Morality is not a thing which is somewhere in the mental realm and instructs people on what is right or wrong absolutely.... which it would be is it was provided by a god.... it is something very down to earth, very subjective, which tells you it's something very human.
