Catholic Scientist writes:
With a godless relative morallity, you're in no position to say that there is anything actually wrong with me being bad, other than society has deemed it unacceptable.
This is confusing. I was under the impression that no one of the religious persuasion was able to show that their morality was either absolute or superior to society's morality.
From what I can see, society is the ONLY metric by which good and bad are evaluated.
Example: The Inquisition was considered good in the society where it was used. It obviously was squared up nicely with the religious texts by the priests of the time (at least the majority). Yet we consider it bad from our lofty position in this society.
Native American tribes considered torturing captives completely moral and even involved their children in the ceremony. Again our moral outrage of this practice is easy to come by 2 centuries later.
Killing and eating your enemy was practiced by tribes in New Guinea until fairly recently. However they loved their children and families the same as we do. Their society seemed to be viable until judged by the Western Society and the practice outlawed.
Are athiests necessarily "less moral" than thiests? Within the bounds set by that particular society...no. Withing the bounds set by a particular religion....likely yes.
™ Version 4.2
