Welcome to Gaia! ::

A lot of religious people like to argue that, without religion, there would be no basis for morality and ethics. They talk about how the idea of an afterlife and the actions needed to get there give all of our actions gravity and meaning, more than any atheistic philosophy could.

In response to that, I have this to say:

If people are able to assume that there's an afterlife which passage into requires appropriate conduct in this world, that means they can also justify whatever evils they commit by claiming that those evils will bring them eternal grace. They don't necessarily have to commit to any mainstream faith in order to do this. Religion is too malleable that way.
There's only one reality, however, and in there, our actions have tangible consequences.

TL;DR:
-Religious ethics: malleable.
-Realistic ethics: concrete.

And that's why I always wanted to skip ethics class xd blabbering about something that rests only within our sweet little heads. I agree with G. E. Moore when it comes to metaethics, and if it comes to morality... I trust my human nature. I'd never kill an animal. (only mayflies... sometimes I forget myself and slap them)

It's good when one can see for him/herself what's good and what's bad. Some people can't, so they need religion. Some people can't and they act without any thinking.

My favourite problem in ethics is double morality. Many self-claimed religious people are exemplifications of it.

I'm not sure. Ask yourself, you hold your nature 3nodding
'm not a relativist, I'm not a relativist, I'm not aaargh.... _-_ No matter how hard I try, I'm still a relativist.

I have to agree. People are naturally good, but not in ethical sense. It's more like "good, because not evil". But some may disagree saying that people are naturally egoistic (like Hobbes) (it doesn't mean evil tough). Some say that our nature is rotten wink