Quote Originally Posted by StephL View Post
I looked it up here: Difference btw. Ethics and Morals

Theoretically, what religion puts upon you would be subsumed under ethics.
But the religious keep claiming, that it is not so - that what they prescribe, including for example around the topic of sexuality, are objective moral values and duties.
They argue, the only justification for objective moral values would be a divine being's commandments in any case.
Neglecting, that we and also animals have social traits and an innate moral compass given to us by evolution, to discern good from bad, and that societies have means of generalizing those and enforcing them and that's all there is needed.
Who upon suddenly loosing her faith would start acting immoral from then on?
She won't, don't think so.
Because you have the power whether or not to invest belief in these "objective morals" and they're not irrefutably given to every human being, they're still inherently subjective. If they weren't subjective, you wouldn't have the option of not believing them.

You're more correct in stating that much more morality is an evolutionary development regarding the evolution of pathos rather than genes. Religion itself follows along such evolution, as we can see through the way it mutated to acquire attributes such as the belief that it's objectively true to justify conquering and proliferating. In other words, if you think of religion like an organism, of course the followers will be told its moral system is objectively true, most of the religions that didn't believe in objective morality got conquered by the ones that did.