[QUOTE=MVWRX] I contend that humans are inately driven to take care of each other, but we're highly volitile and emotional. If religion keeps those of us who act on emotion in line, great, just don't put it in my face.[/QUOTE]

Werd. As long as you keep it to yourself and knock on my door, it's all good. You can pray to the green witch and the wood faeries for all I care, just don't expect me to believe it.

[QUOTE=HellaDumb]Funny how morals usually parallel the 10 commandments ;).[/QUOTE]
Weren't there originally like 600 commandments though? Who knows how the context and translation could have been altered.

[QUOTE=HellaDumb]Funny how morals usually parallel the 10 commandments ;).[/QUOTE]

My whole contention is that the morals predate the commandments. We know this, since the same basic morals are written in various philosophical pieces from before the Old Testament. The morals are there without the stone tablets, but for some people having something/one tell them what to do works better.

[QUOTE=MVWRX]The idea of 'do unto others' precedes modern religion.[/QUOTE]
Kinda, but not really. I take it you havn't read the code of Hammurabi? lol ;)

[QUOTE=VIBEELEVEN]Kinda, but not really. I take it you havn't read the code of Hammurabi? lol ;)[/QUOTE]

That's one example. I take it you haven't read any of the Greek philosopher's essays on morality and character?

[QUOTE=VIBEELEVEN] I take it you havn't read the code of Hammurabi? [/QUOTE]

I was thinking, and actually the code of Hammurabi is proof that morals did exist before the old testament. If you steal from someone, there was a penalty. In the code it was getting your hand cut off. In the bible it's going to hell. Same principle...be good or else.

[QUOTE=MVWRX]...be good or else.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, ths principle has been in existence since the earliests forms of society one may wish to call "society." The differences are in the penalties and the definition of being "good."

Thou shalt be smited, infadel! [/shakes fist] :p