Religion is a poor source of morality

[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.

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.

What is sin, and why should anyone care about it?

All I hear about it is that it offends god or something, so it's wrong. It's an excuse to say something is wrong without having to explain why it is of any actual consequence to something real.

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. 

There can be no dependency for something objective. If it is based on something such as god's nature, which he can change however he wants presumably, it is not objective. It's subjective to whatever decisions he makes about what his nature is. It's just mirroring god, which does not reflect what the bible says at all. Instead, Yahweh mirrors the morality at that time. Now you would like Yahweh to mirror our morality. Either way, he's a mirror and totally surplus  to requirements. And not objective. Why should I care what his nature is, or what he wants? [As I later comment, I agree you can argue dependency on the very laws of the universe etc, but if you go that far, then nothing could ever be said to be objective.]

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. 

Yes, it is wrong to declare any one person or society objectively more moral than another. It makes no sense. Only once you've agreed the goals of morality can you compare, and if both societies don't agree with the goals, you're begging the question by announcing one the victor. Being uncomfortable with this, as I said, isn't an argument against it.

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.

You can't be "incorrect" with a moral judgement, because it is a judgement. It depends on how you are judging it. It can only be incorrect if you've decided your goals and then mistakenly judge something for being something that it's not. Accounting for the source of morality is not difficult at all. It is actually extremely easy. It requires no personal cause or god. This occurrence and overlap of morality is mistaken for magic by those who don't understand it or want to study it properly. Also, you're admitting people don't actually agree, so it's not objective. Who has it right? You? If no one has it right, how can we use it as a standard? If we're just discussing it between ourselves, then that is again subjective.

Here is a brief explanation of how morality develops from evolution:

1) Evolution works through natural selection. Those that survive and breed the most will pass on their genes in general ahead of those who live less long and breed less.

2) When survival was a constant issue, humans/humanoid ancestors worked best in groups rather than alone. Cooperation provided protection, the ability to hunt more effectively, and so on. So anyone who was inclined to work well in a group tended to live longer and have more chance to breed. Those that were loners did less well.

3) Over time, the average amount of empathy (caring about those around you) increased, by selection of those working well in a group. Now we have a general trend for people to have empathy and work well as am extended group/society.

4) Evolution only deals with trends, so people tend to be this way, but anomalies still occur. This is completely expected under evolution, but totally screws up the idea that everyone has the same basic objective morality. They don't. Some people are psychopaths/sociopaths who can have no empathy. God missed them out?

For more professional, further reading please see this article that Rhythm kindly showed me a while back.

This is the scientific study of how morality came about. Just ignoring the facts and evidence as too complex and declaring "magic" is always premature (it is the argument from ignorance/incredulity) and never helpful. If the models aren't good enough, we improve them, not look to religious stories.