>>This is where we part company. People who have believed in God behave in certain ways (follow a moral code) because they have been told that this is what God wants them to do. By your reasoning, people who don't believe in God won't behave morally because they have no reason to do so. But my view of reality is that people who believe in God (I don't mean all) frequently behave immorally and people who don't believe in God (I don't mean all) frequently behave morally. From that I conclude that belief in God (religion) is not a predictor of moral behavior and that moral behavior is not derive from religion but exists apart from it.
>>
>
>If your premise is that man defines his own goodness, then Charles Manson is no more moral than you or I. God has laid down his law which delineates morality. And as a point of clarification, (He hasn't said thou shalt no kill, He said thou shalt not Murder). Morality defined by God is a guideline, not an absolute. Moral people sometimes behave imorally. That is a deliberate act though. My point is that God is the one who draws the lines. Left to our own designs, we develop situational ethics. At any rate, it's a good point to ponder.

If I got him right, then you most probably got him wrong. Man doth define his own morality, only not as an individual, but rather as a society. So, Manson is still wrong. Even if religions had never existed, he'd still be a murderer, and the murder would still be wrong, punishable and undesirable, simply because it's generally an obstacle to civilization and human society.

See message 964518 and onward, don't want to repeat all of the good discussion I had with John Ryan there.