Quote Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
Wrong. Morality is innate in humans. Humans invented religion. Therefore, humans put the morals in religion, not the other way around.
This may be so, I am not denying this. But not all religious people holds the same view, that morale is innate. Many would even say that humans have a disposition towards doing evil things; the opposite of having morals.

Quote Originally Posted by skysaw View Post
Religion is not the reason for morals any more than frogs are the reason for light bulbs. People seem to think that the bible somehow bestows upon them the unique quality of morality. The truth is Atheists are no less moral than any religious group (and a hell of a lot more moral than most).
Quote Originally Posted by beorn
I am not very informed about how [atheists] derive their morals, but they do have them, and knowing atheists, there is probably good reasoning behind them.
Quote Originally Posted by skysaw View Post
But don't worry... if religion is ever suddenly removed, we Atheists would be more than happy to teach you how to be moral without a book.
But would it be possible to teach moral to billions of people?


Please, I am not trying to attack anyone here. It is just my musings. Understanding each others viewpoints is very important.
I have never understood why people with different perspectives seems to have to yell and fight. There is always some common ground. We should all take it.


I feel trapped by the words we have to use. Religion, atheists, those words are so full of prejudice.
I prefer human to both.
Humans have belief, belief in religion, belief in atheism.
Belief is also a good word. Some things cannot, at least for now, be proven or disproven. There is no problem with this.


And, to go on topic; evolution is a good model to describe the world's life. Just as gravitational theory is a good model to describe gravitation.
Often, models are extremely close to the real thing.

Here also I see no argument. Why would I? Evolution seems to work.
Of course there is a philosophical point to be made in that we use induction to prove our scientific theories. But we have to live with this very minimal risk of wrong conclusions. There simply is no other way (that I know of, at least).