[steve-b]

Nonsense. It is readily observed that behavior according to basic civilized rules produces better long-term results than instant gratification. Some people, both with and without religion, have the self-discipline to follow the former road; others of both sorts do not.

As you note, those who lack that self-discipline tend to degenerate into tribalism (sometimes with religious affiliation serving to provide a tribal identity).

[RobRoy]

>.It is readily observed that behavior according to basic civilized rules produces better long-term results than instant gratification.<<

By who’s definition?

[RobRoy]

>>As you note, those who lack that self-discipline tend to degenerate into tribalism...<<

Why is that a bad thing?

[fr_freak]

Nonsense. It is readily observed that behavior according to basic civilized rules produces better long-term results than instant gratification.

Morality, especially as espoused by most religions, tends to protect the weak from the strong, or obliges the strong to protect and care for the weak. Without morality, there is very little reason to justify these things. When you speak of long-term results being better with civilized behavior, that is only true up to a point. When a situation arises where you would be best served by murdering someone, only morality stops you from doing so. The idea that some form of self-discipline would stop you has no sound basis. Why would self-discipline come into play if your only goal is for the benefit of yourself and your "tribe"? Self-discipline simply means restraining yourself from doing such things until you are sure the benefits outweigh the consequences. The example I gave earlier was one where you knew you could get away with murdering someone and taking their stuff without anyone ever knowing. Self-discipline is satisfied once it knows that you and your people won't be harmed.