Religion is a poor source of morality

[RoadRunner79]

Religion is often touted as a good sense of morality.  "If you don't fear god, then you can rape and murder all you want!" some religious people like to say.  Of course this ignores that Atheists aren't killing people in droves, and our jails don't have a disproportionate amount of atheists either.  But that's not the point here.

I think you are misunderstanding the argument.  It is that under naturalism, there is no source for objective morality.  And if there is no objective morality, then you are just appealing to your personal opinion, and lose any argument against the morals of others.

As to your examples from the old testament, I think you need to do some more research.

Rape was okay - Nope
Women who weren't virgins were worthless - Not there

Let's move a bit closer, however.  Slavery.  Not the biblical slavery (which is apparently okay because that was the culture of the time too.  And it wasn't THAT bad!  At least not as bad as modern slavery).  First of all if modern slavery is worse, then modern slavery was developed during a period of Christianity.  Which means that these same 'moral' people developed a system of slavery even worse than the goat herders two thousand years ago did.  The same people that were happy to stone a woman for not being married before having sex.

My understanding is that it was more akin to indentured servitude then what we likely think of when talking slavery.  Also they where released from their bond in the year of jubilee, slaves where not to be kidnapped or sold.  And, it was never said or encouraged to have slaves by scripture.  I'm not encouraging or promoting slavery, but it seems unfair either in ignorance or by design, to ignore that much of what scripture does say about slavery, and the moral treatment of them.

But back to objective morality.  It's not a comparison of behavior nor saying that atheist behave immorally or are less moral (and it doesn't mean that those who call themselves Christians are more moral).   It has to do with the basis for morality.  For the materialist, they have no standard or cause for objective reality, and therefore no reason to be moral other than subjective preference (not that they cannot be).  And if morality is subjective, then it would be a category error to judge someone else by your own standards.

[robvalue]

Yeah, it's just that this argument totally fails because if God makes morality then it's still not objective. It's subjective to God It is still a matter of opinion, just his opinion. And if you trust someone's opinion completely, never using your own thought, that is an amoral and dangerous system. Us atheists clearly do have morality, or else we'd all be running around murdering and raping, right? I know some theists like to pretend that this is what is happening, but it's not.

Just because God is (increasingly) removed from us, it doesn't stop his opinion being arbitrary. And since no two theists can agree on what his opinion even is, it's not even consistent. Religion also muddies the waters by making moral actions things which please God (irrelevant) and immoral actions ones that make him angry ("sins", irrelevant). It then tries to pass off the results of this system as just happening to be what is best for us. But if we don't ever analyse his opinion, we have no idea if it's in our collective interest or not. Especially when we don't get his opinion from him, but from humans presuming to speak for him.

If it's all a matter of doing what the dictator says so he won't punish you, that's no moral system.

http://youtu.be/j3PtvZ2snXk

[RoadRunner79]

Yeah, it's just that this argument totally fails because if God makes morality then it's still not objective. It's subjective to God It is still a matter of opinion, just his opinion. And if you trust someone's opinion completely, never using your own thought, that is an amoral and dangerous system. Us atheists clearly do have morality, or else we'd all be running around murdering and raping, right? I know some theists like to pretend that this is what is happening, but it's not.

There is another option, that morality is based on God's nature, not opinion.   I believe that you are also confusing sin with morality.  I am differentiating here, in morality being always wrong for all people.  Whereas sin may be in regard to a specific people or individual in relation to God's command.

The other thing, that I notice in this post, and I want to point out as directly as I can, because it is too often mis-understood (no matter how many times it is explained).  The argument of morality, has nothing to do with behavior or whether people (any group) are moral.  It has to do with the basis for morality and the source of objective morality. 

Throughout culture, geography, and time; man has a sense that there is an objective morality, outside of themselves.  There may be some disagreements, but then others are almost universally held to (if morality is objective, then it's truth is not dependent on recognition or knowledge of it)   We feel free to judge other cultures and times, as good or bad in regards to morals, and think that there is a moral standard which should be held to.  If morality is subjective, and can change from person to person, or group to group (as agreed upon), then it is incorrect to judge another person or group by a different standard (your own subjective morals).  Many betray themselves, because on one hand, they say that the standard for morality is subjective (changes and is based on individual opinion).  Then they desire to judge others and even God saying that there is another standard. 

So then if morality is subjective, many are incorrect in applying moral judgement against others (including often mis-understood arguments against God).  If morals are objective, then it is difficult for a naturalist to account for the cause or source of morals using only matter and the laws of physics.  Science cannot tell you what ought to be, and the laws of physics are inadequate as a cause, as they are a constant force.  It's not good or bad, better or worse, it just is, and has no choice of what is.  From the argument from morality, similarly to the argument from reason, requires a personal cause.

[Edwardo Piet]

How the fuck can the Bible be a source for objective morality? The only objective thing about it is it objectively statistically leads to a lot of shit like the Crusades which objectively lead to a lot of misery. As Sam Harris would argue, the Bible leads objectively to immorality, not morality.

[Spooky]

Religion is more than a poor source...religion actively fucks up morality.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's an anti-source, it's a source for immorality.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

How the fuck can the Bible be a source for objective morality? The only objective thing about it is it objectively statistically leads to a lot of shit like the Crusades which objectively lead to a lot of misery. As Sam Harris would argue, the Bible leads objectively to immorality, not morality.

When discussing the Crusades it pays to remember that the muslims had invaded Europe and the Christian lands in Africa and Asia.  And they were still in Spain during the Crusades.

[RoadRunner79]

How the fuck can the Bible be a source for objective morality? The only objective thing about it is it objectively statistically leads to a lot of shit like the Crusades which objectively lead to a lot of misery. As Sam Harris would argue, the Bible leads objectively to immorality, not morality.

When discussing the Crusades it pays to remember that the muslims had invaded Europe and the Christian lands in Africa and Asia.  And they were still in Spain during the Crusades.

Man.... Don't screw them up with actual history.....   Next you'll be telling them that there was political pressures for the Spanish Inquisition.

[Edwardo Piet]

The Crusades was one example.

[robvalue]

Roadrunner: The fact that people tend to generally share the same sense of morality is a direct result of evolution and is easily explainable. There's no need to resort to any outside influence. The fact that this sense of morality changes over time shows that any attempt by God to influence our morality hasn't worked. He could set it where he wants it initially, and then make it so it doesn't change. That isn't what happens. Yes, people have felt there is some outside influence, that doesn't stop them being wrong. Something being objective means you can somehow measure it using a certain method, and everyone would get the same results in any particular example, such as measuring mass or velocity. (Let's not cloud the issue with advanced science. Of course there will be user error to some degree as we're not infallible.) To say morality is objective, you need to give a method for measuring it. You also have to explain why that particular way of measuring it is meaningful or useful.

You seem to be uncomfortable with consequences. If there is only subjective morality, then no one can objectively say they are more moral than anyone else. Correct. That doesn't stop it being true. Simply announcing that there must be a "correct" subjective morality and calling that objective morality is entirely arbitrary and pointless.

What we can do, and what we do do is to agree between us in a society on general goals for morality such as maximising life, health, happiness, opportunity, equality, freedom and so on while minimising death, harm, suffering, etc. Once we have agreed those things are important, a sensible framework can be built. It's then possible to compare one set of morals to another, to see which best serves the goals. What we consider important goals is something that evolves over time, as certain things seem more important and others less important.

Some things are quite obviously better than others, while different sensible approaches will still be a matter of debate among society. How exactly you measure each of the things in the goals will be slightly different for each individual, as will how important each is compared to the others.

If morality is based on god's nature, it's still subjective to god's nature. It's not objective. We can study the evolution of a particular society's morality, or we can study individuals to see how their own ideas compare to the general consensus. Objective morality is akin to saying, "Look, this is all too complicated. People sort of agree, and I want there to be a best way to behave. Therefor there is a magic standard." Even if there was one, no two people can agree what it is so it would be utterly pointless. What use to anyone is millions of theists all announcing their own interpretation of objective morality? If we're simply going to discuss them and find out what we think is right, then we're dealing with subjective morality again.

Plus, you really don't want morality based on god's nature if that God is Yahweh. I assume you've read the bible, the only apparent source we have. By today's civilised standards and goals, he is a psychopathic monster. To say otherwise is to discount the bible, at which point you're just completely making stuff up.