1. Religious morality and my own secular morality often coincide because religious morality is drawn from human nature (and reason), much like my own. Even if you believe God directly revealed in the religious text or whatever a certain number of moral truths without precedent, certainly there are a large number of moral claims held by religions which aren't directly stated by a deity but instead were reasoned out by religious philosophers or theologians or were simply adapted from the background culture.
	• A lot of people, not most people but a lot of people, seem to abandon religion and then go completely crazy. “Without an ultimate authority, everything is permissible!” — a small but remarkable number of both religious and atheistic people seem to think this. I disagree with the sentiment entirely. Morality still just goes back to human nature.
2. At the same time, my reflection about how the premise is not more convincing than the conclusion, with regards to certain things philosophers believe (see: musing_about_the_beginning_of_the_world.txt), also applies to many theological moral arguments. A lot of them basically have no weight as an argument besides whether or not you find the thing they're discussing already good or bad. (Or already believe them to be approved or disapproved of by god.) And this is often sort of inevitable. How else would an argument about whether things are good or bad work, without that component?