I've always found it a tired debate whether or not you "need" religion to be moral or not ... no religious people I know actually believe that, yet it's a constantly mocked notion by atheists.
You know, as someone who hasn't believed in God for more than a decade, this is actually a challenging question to me. I used to think it was obvious that one could be moral without religion, and that saying or implying otherwise was deeply insulting and a proof of close-mindedness, but since I've actually started giving more thought to the issue, I can actually see where this argument is coming from.
It's
incredibly hard to ground any coherent universal moral framework on entirely secular first principles - I know because I've tried very hard (and still am). Kant and Rawls are those I've seen come closest, but Kant is kind of cheating (quite ironically, from him!), and Rawls' veil of ignorance has a distinctly metaphysical feel to it. Otherwise, the easy alternative is to go down the subjectivist road like Afleitch (if I understand him correctly) does. But that's just unacceptable to me.
Now, obviously this doesn't mean that it's impossible for a nonbeliever to act morally - moral intuitions are still there, and, in a person raised under decently sound values, they go a great deal to guide toward a moral life. But relying entirely on intuitions is very dangerous, and I know we should strive for more than that. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that I don't have faith and can't just trick myself into pretending to have it. Sure,
sincerity is not enough, but I'd say it's still better than insincere belief.
