http://www.sltrib.com/religion/global/2017/10/17/for-the-first-time-ever-most-americans-say-a-person-can-be-good-without-god/

Despite the fact our prisons are not full of Atheists.

I guess we need to re-define what "good and moral conduct" looks like. Banging Fanny Alger behind his wife's back, attempted assassinations and marrying other men's wives and lying about all these things isn't considered bad and immoral. I suppose that Brigham's assassination of dozens of people in Utah and southern church leaders (George A. Smith and others) revenging the blood of the prophets on the Baker-Fancher Party after deceiving them and assuring them of their safety (MMM) was good and moral conduct.

This reminds me of a quote "Those who believe in absurdities will commit atrocities."

The nagging problem with removing a transcendent (or at least external/historical) source for morality is that what is "good" becomes a moving target subject to whatever local tendencies are popular at any given moment in history.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The nagging problem with removing a transcendent
> (or at least external/historical) source for
> morality is that what is "good" becomes a moving
> target subject to whatever local tendencies are
> popular at any given moment in history.

And that's different from claiming "god" as the source of that which is "good" because...?

A quick tour through the history of any religion clearly shows that what they consider "good" changes regularly. And is just as subject to "local tendencies" as any other way of determining "good."

"....what is "good" becomes a moving target subject to whatever local tendencies are popular at any given moment in history.

It works both ways. What is deemed "good" with "a transcendent (or at least external/historical) source for morality" changes according to the location and times. Religion is no safer than non-religion as far as "good" goes.

BINGO!

This is actually the reason why I actually have a tendency to believe there is no God.

If there were a "transcendent (or at least external/historical) source for morality", then such a concept as "good" would have been stable throughout history, but that's not the case. Slavery, rape, murder, and all kinds of things that are now considered "evil" by today's standards where once considered "good", even by religious sources.

What makes sense is that morality has evolved over time, without an outside influence, this is what a study of history shows and it makes more sense than a supposed "transcendent" being who's supposed to be the absolute authority on morality, but seems to change his mind a lot.

"For the first time, a majority of Americans (56 percent) say it is possible to be a good person without a religious belief."

56% isn't enough.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

If you think you'd be a horrible person without your belief in God, then you already are.