I have quite sound morals, but I don’t follow any religion…

In my opinion, the two are completely independent – you can easily have one without the other!

I don’t do religion of any kind, yet I know my morals are better than a lot of religious types. Jim Bakker? Pah!

They can be, in some people, but conflict w/i many more people, IMO.

Of the two, I’d prefer people w/morals every time.

Of course secular folk can have perfectly sound morals, just as religious folk can have rather dubious morals. One could in fact argue that someone who does good out of goodness’ sake is acting more morally than someone who does good for ultimately selfish reasons (to be rewarded in heaven/avoid punishment in hell). Although of course the question of whether complete altruism can ever exist is relevant here but let’s skim over that as I wish to free myself from the bondage of 43T at some point tonight.

Anyway, I doubt there is such a thing as a moral compass based solely on religious belief. Otherwise, for example, fundamentalist Christians would be as outraged by those who eat shellfish or have sex with women on the rag as they are by homosexuals or women who have abortions. Clearly the society in which they were brought up has effected their sense of morality. But really, how can someone who believes that the Judeo-Christian god is the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe be so audacious as to make assumptions about His divine will? Why aren’t you stoning the rape victims like God told you to? :/

Also, for the religious among you, the Euthyphro Dilemma also rears its head – is an action ‘good’ because God commands it, or does God command it because it is ‘good’? Have a wee ponder at that. I’m just happy to have used something I learned in the Philosophy section of my RS course in real life. ;)

Completely separate!

I fail to see how they are at all related.

Absolutely seperate.

they are two cars traveling on the same freeway – sometimes the cross each others paths, sometimes they don’t …

I know a lot of religious people that use their religion as a shield to justify their actions and so they think that their shitty morals are okay as long as they go to church or whatever, so religion definitely doesn’t guarantee that someone has good morality. Also, I’m very unreligious and I think I have fairly good morals, so yeah.

I don’t think they are synonymies. Far by that. There has been done lots of bad stuff in the name of religion, even the morale should say that it’s wrong.

“When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.”
- Abraham Lincoln

“To believe in God or in a guiding force because someone tells you to is the height of stupidity. We are given senses to receive our information within. With our own eyes we see, and with our own skin we feel. With our intelligence, it is intended that we understand. But each person must puzzle it out for himself or herself.”
- Sophy Burnham

No, and yes, respectively.

I’ve known both atheists and religious folks who were truly good, moral people. I’ve also known examples of both who were utter sh*ts.

I will agree that if you have an experience of being part of something bigger than yourself – and you can interpret that in spiritual terms or not – you will naturally not want to hurt or harm others (which is the basis of all true morality), because they’re also part of the same Big Thing. But it doesn’t work the other way round.

Keeping rules for their own sake leads to the rules becoming the most important thing. Which leads to tyranny, whatever way you look at it.

I think…that all religions were originally based on morals.
But now, thousands of years after their conception, most everyone misses the fundamental point and think that the purpose of religion is to serve God, or get into Heaven, or whatever, when all of that was originally just metaphor for living a good life!
So, no.