Hain

OK I am not a renowned debater on topics as open as this. Roachboy, what difference if this "argument" is based on a foundation that morals lead to social norms, which lead to written laws. It's a logical progression of simple to complex. A person with more power than most has a moral, which is copied by others to become a social norm, which later inflates to a written law.

To me, religious texts are like large story books with a lot of morals and rules to live by, with benefits and punishments. Religion than can be a great way to live your life, as long as it doesn't try to force itself on others. If someone has similar beliefs, then most likely one will be drawn to that religion.

A moral person simply has their system of honor, right and wrong. It may not be written down but what difference does that make when that person lives by these things.

So why not morals and religion were independently forged, and quite possibly one influenced the other as they have in the past. However, I believe that God does not require believers whatsoever, but back when morality began to fail, religion was strengthened with adding the fear of burning eternally in hell.

So what did come first: chicken or the egg--morality or religion.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\