Does religion have Monopoly on Morals?

I find in most religious debates a topic often brought up is the origin of morality. And essentially it's argued anyone not of religious belief can't have morality.

So here's the question:
Does religion have Monopoly on Morals or not?

What exactly do you mean by this?

>I'm atheist
>I have morals

What do you want more?

basically what Shidoshi said.

I don't really get what you're trying to say here. An athiest is a wild animal with no boundaries?

A religion may attempt to establish it's own groundwork for what is or is not immoral, however this does not change the fact that morality itself is a social construct developed by culture, not religion, religion is just an influencing factor in the shaping of moral views.

What religions do have is a monopoly on is Sin.
Sin is a crime against God, and as such can only exist within religious context, and only within religions that believe it is possibly to defy or affront God in some way.

Often you will see a religious person say, "But if there is no God, why shouldn't we steal, rape, and murder?"
I believe this is due to the way they were brought up. It's very easy to get a child to behave by saying, "if you misbehave you will be punished" - at first by parents and teachers and then "even if we don't catch you, God sees everything and will punish you in the fullness of time."
It's a little harder to get a child to understand that something can be right or wrong regardless of reward or punishment, but it is accomplished. Those of us who were brought up in non-believer homes, somehow absorbed values without an attached all-judge.
The funny (?) thing is that many people who lose their religion don't lose their values. Some others, though... I believe someone on Southperry used to have a sig that went something like "When I was a child I used to pray to God for a bicycle. Then I realized that's not how it works. I stole a bicycle and prayed for forgiveness."

Another argument you hear sometimes is that the "origin" of morals is in religion, specifically the Old Testament. Some people apparently believe that if it weren't for the Ten Commandments, humanity would never have come up with the idea that killing people is wrong.
This is patently false. Rules against killing others, or taking their posessions, exist in all human cultures, even those that predate Moses or never had contact with Abrahamic religions (in fact, many of these rules exist in some form even in animals). Same for rules about protecting children, respecting the elderly, etc. Cultures vary in the fine details, but the basic principle of looking out for your herdmates is ubiquitous.

If you meant some other form of the argument, Erebus, please clarify.

...morality itself is a social construct developed by culture, not religion, religion is just an influencing factor in the shaping of moral views.

What religions do have is a monopoly on is Sin.

I partially agree and wholeheartedly agree with the first and second points entirely. The only problem is that, in the case of the former, a social construct is built on faith, as is the case in some islamic lands.

This is a rather heavy debate though. Once we were savages, then we became civilized. Just when was it deemed that killing another person for pleasure was bad? When did we grow out of being cavemen and became cosmopolitan humans? It's kinda hard to say I'd answer. Did religion have an impact on that? Of course, but I doubt it was the deciding factor in it's creation... maybe just a part of it.

I partially agree and wholeheartedly agree with the first and second points entirely. The only problem is that, in the case of the former, a social construct is built on faith, as is the case in some islamic lands.

This is a rather heavy debate though. Once we were savages, then we became civilized. Just when was it deemed that killing another person for pleasure was bad? When did we grow out of being cavemen and became cosmopolitan humans? It's kinda hard to say I'd answer. Did religion have an impact on that? Of course, but I doubt it was the deciding factor in it's creation... maybe just a part of it.

You could look at animals like the Piranha, often demonized as one of the most savage killers but they don't participate in cannibalism more or less for sake of needing others to survive.

Even some animals have "laws" where they'll outcast another animal/member of their group due to mistakes.

You could say killing might not be wrong on a moral ground, but on a productive ground.

The short answer is no. Religion does not have a monopoly on morals. Morals are established by culture groups. Killing for example is morally acceptable in some cultures if it is for a higher purpose. This is apparent in just about every culture in the world. Dont believe me? What about war? In war it is not only acceptable but expected. Even in religous terms, it has been acceptable. You need not look far for that answer, just check the history behind the crusades. The best phrase I have heard describing religion was this...Fighting over religion is like fighting over who has the best imaginary friend. The way I see it, morals are determinded on a case by case basis. It all depends on the cultural beliefs of the society and can be changed over time to include or exclude certain factors. One only needs to look up human history to see the changes in morality over time, changes that to this day are still being made.

The short answer is no. Religion does not have a monopoly on morals. Morals are established by culture groups. Killing for example is morally acceptable in some cultures if it is for a higher purpose. This is apparent in just about every culture in the world. Dont believe me? What about war(1)? In war it is not only acceptable but expected. Even in religous terms, it has been acceptable. You need not look far for that answer, just check the history behind the crusades. The best phrase I have heard describing religion was this...Fighting over religion is like fighting over who has the best imaginary friend. The way I see it, morals are determinded on a case by case basis. It all depends on the cultural beliefs of the society and can be changed over time to include or exclude certain factors. One only needs to look up human history to see the changes in morality over time, changes that to this day are still being made.

bolded for hypocrisy, and war != murder. there's all kinds of war now that don't require murder, i.e. the war on drugs and on crime (both lol-worthy in their own regards). And you mention the crusades... Was this post supposed to be about murder or about morals?

The answer is: no. Religion itself does not. The Church however, or whatever other place and administration of a religion, does however hold a monopoly on almost everything. Not just a monopoly, but a hypocrisy. It's no different than any other form of administration in this world; it has corrupt places and dark, secret places. It isn't bad all the way through, but there are obvious places where it has taken root.

war != murder. there's all kinds of war now that don't require murder, i.e. the war on drugs and on crime (both lol-worthy in their own regards). And you mention the crusades...Was this post supposed to be about murder or about morals?

If war = murder. Then why do servicemen not get punished for said murders. Probably because war does not = murder. Yes I mentioned the crusades, because it was relevant to the morality question, due to that being a religous war. As for the war on drugs and crime, yes there are moral issues there as well. Murder most deffinately fall into the war on drugs and crime.

I find in most religious debates a topic often brought up is the origin of morality. And essentially it's argued anyone not of religious belief can't have morality.

So here's the question:
Does religion have Monopoly on Morals or not?

no.

If war = murder. Then why do servicemen not get punished for said murders. Probably because war does not = murder. Yes I mentioned the crusades, because it was relevant to the morality question, due to that being a religous war. As for the war on drugs and crime, yes there are moral issues there as well. Murder most deffinately fall into the war on drugs and crime.

Murder is defined as being unjustified intentional killing of a human being.
All societies say killing people is wrong - except when it is justified.
Depending on the society, justifications can easy ("he looked funny at my wife so I challenged him to a duel and won") or difficult (only in self defense and only if you can prove he would have killed you if you didn't kill him), but there always are some.
War justifies killing by saying it is done to protect the country or some lofty ideal.

Murder is defined as being unjustified intentional killing of a human being.
All societies say killing people is wrong - except when it is justified.
Depending on the society, justifications can easy ("he looked funny at my wife so I challenged him to a duel and won") or difficult (only in self defense and only if you can prove he would have killed you if you didn't kill him), but there always are some.
War justifies killing by saying it is done to protect the country or some lofty ideal.

My point exactly.

[COLOR="Magenta"]The second you put your morals on a religion such as Christianity, with all of its inconsistencies and deviations you lose the game.
In my personal opinion.
[/COLOR]

bolded for hypocrisy, and war != murder. there's all kinds of war now that don't require murder, i.e. the war on drugs and on crime (both lol-worthy in their own regards). And you mention the crusades... Was this post supposed to be about murder or about morals?

war on drugs and crime is just a play of words. It's not actually a "war" on them.

bolded for hypocrisy, and war != murder. there's all kinds of war now that don't require murder, i.e. the war on drugs and on crime (both lol-worthy in their own regards). And you mention the crusades... Was this post supposed to be about murder or about morals?

war on drugs and crime is just a play of words. It's not actually a "war" on them.

Economic warfare? Cold war?

Philosophically all moral behavior has a tie into some form of social conformity which was possibly derived from a religious base whatever it may be. You can trace many core social norms even as far back as Sumeria (Mesopotamia) which had a society that had some sort of religious guidance at it's core.

I wouldn't say religion has always guided what has been accepted by society, but it has played a significant role at defining it's core roots, but only as of modern society within the last 50 years or so has society truly started to break away from what was defined by a religious pretext to what literally was acceptable to a degree, though this has been only possible as far back as the Renaissance's initial impact on society which removed the involvement of the church from some politics and some government.

But as far as the initial question: Does religion have a monopoly on morals? Which came first, a religion or a society? In terms of the roots of human civilization and the foundation of social norms it brought, we might not ever truly know. It could be a mixture of both for all we know.

Religion does not have a monopoly on morals. There are plenty of moral atheists. The real question being asked is this: In the absence of any sort of higher power is there any real point to morality? Is the law meaningful if there is no lawgiver?