Theistic Morality

If there is no God, then what basis can we use for what is right and wrong? Aren't our morals tied somewhat to our religious beliefs, or can morals be established without the tie to religion?

Since there are not gods or other supernatural things, our morals are based on what people around us said they should be, i.e., family, community, governments. IOW, --morals are based on consensus. It's always been that way.

But since there is (at least in America) a consensus that God is real, can it not be said that our morals derive (perhaps unwillingly) from religious belief?

Good question.

I've heard and read "devout Christians" claim atheists are amoral because we don't believe in God.

Intellectually: I'm an egoist. I accept it's to my advantage to obey many rules. When it is not, I will often break rules,if I can either get away with it,or am simply willing to wear the sanctions,and of course my bloody conscience doesn't bother me too much.

Today,in an age of moral relativism,people can,and do argue that there are no absolute moral imperatives.I don't agree,but I don't think there are many.I doubt I could intentionlly harm another person without a lot of angst, especially a child.I can't think of any circumstance when the rape of a child would be justified. (by "'rape" I mean any sexuall actvity between an adult and a pre adolescent child).

What I think: For the vast majority of people, moral relavatism is the default philosophy because it is the most indolent philosophy, since it is rooted in expediency and rationalization. For those who embrace a creed of amoralism-- or what they may call moral relativism-- I would ask them: why not rape a five year old? Is it just a fear of punishment? if so, based on the statistics and given the corruption of our judicial system, that fear is greatly misplaced.

May I suggest there is a distinction between arguing that there are no absolute moral imperatives-- an ultimately fruitless task, in my view-- and acting as if there were moral absolutes but without conditioning those claims in religion, consensus, or the law. The challenge as I see it is to not relativize or personalize but go to the other extreme and generalize and universalize by acting, in effect, as judge, jury, prosecuting attorney, and defendent when deciding moral obligation or dilemmas. So Kant's answer to the question: why not rape? is this principle: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means." This is the opposite of egotism as it requires a leap of empathy to people generally and a presuposition of ones self of rational autonomy freely acting as "a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends."

The Latin motto on water bottles and Frisbees for sale in the college bookstore makes the point plain: Numquam Bella Piis, Numquam Certanima Desunt — “For the faithful, wars shall never cease.”

I prefer "Blessed are the peacemakers" myself.

I agree. However, the latin motto is particularly appropriate, especially as it applies to religionists: so long as humans cling to their foolish, devisive superstitions, they will continue to kill and slaughter each other, certain that their god or gods is the right one that others must follow.