What do Atheists believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I'm honestly disturbed by people who are convinced that the only reason they want to act like a good person is because of some great cosmic award and not because it is inherently wrong lie, rape steal or cheat.

It reminds me of how we use sticker charts to teach children how to do their chores and ultimately we hope that children will learn to do their chores without needing external reward, because they understand the intrinsic benefit of cleaning their room.

They may think that because their religion has taught them that, but I think the majority of people would do the right thing most of the time without religion.

But even look at this thread. Adults are asking in all seriousness why anyone would give to charity or not lie, steal, or murder if they don't believe in god.

That's not what people are suggesting. I'm the agnostic who wrote the long post. No, I'm not suggesting the only reason people wouldn't do bad things is because of god. What I'm saying is that most people will do the right thing when it's EASY to do the right thing and/or when the right thing doesn't work against their self-interest.

The difficult part is whether or not people do the right thing when it's hard to do so, when it would mean significant sacrifice on their part, when it's against their self-interest, and/or when no one will find out if they do the wrong thing. In philosophy, it's often discussed in relation to the ring of gyges.

I've met a lot of people who talk a good game about what's right, but I've seen that when it comes down to their own self-interest, if they can get away with not doing what is right and it benefits them, they choose that path (doing the wrong thing). The people who will do what is right, even when it hurts to do so, are the people who have a very strong moral code and a strong sense of obligation to that code. Those people are few and far between (religious, atheist, or otherwise). I do think that for society, it is good to have some sense of a cosmic justice system, a notion that even if no one is looking, you will still be held accountable for doing wrong actions. On the whole, that helps people who don't think critically about ethics, who don't have a very well-developed sense of morality, and who don't have the self-discipline to hold themselves to the values they espouse.

I know atheists who have ideas about ethics, but when it comes down to their own actions, they basically do what has the net gain for them (i.e., most benefit with lowest risk of negative consequences). That's not to say there aren't plenty of religious hypocrites out there. But all of the people on here who wax eloquent about justice and compassion and helping their fellow man, I wonder, beyond throwing some money at charitable organizations, how that plays out in their daily lives. Most people hope for the best, but they're content acting in their self-interest as long as they and their own come out okay. The challenge of a society with majority atheists will be to instill a strong enough sense of obligation to other people and to ethical principles to overcome self-centeredness. It's not that religion does it perfectly, but it at least offers some sort of framework, some higher cause.

I'm all for humanism, but the only people I've met who are committed to it enough for it to guide their everyday actions are people who have a strong sense of duty. Usually, they are people who are atheists/agnostic now but grew up in a religion in which that sense of duty was ingrained in them. So while they may no longer believe in the god or gods of that religion, the sense of duty and obligation and importance of morality have remained and inform their daily actions.

That's an interesting point. People are also inherently lazy. It's hard enough to organize a group of like minded individuals when they have a common goal, like getting PTA volunteers. The benefit of religion is a community, where the benefits of participation are both social - hanging out with like minded friends and ostensibly rewarding in a religious sense - points for good behavior. There is more incentive to actively do good works. That said, I think you can be a be a "good" and ethical person without helping your fellow humans just by doing no harm.

I do believe on the whole most people are good and that is because the majority of us are not psych/sociopaths. I wonder if there's not some sort of brain wiring that makes some of us crave rules and authority. That's one of the first things that drove me from organized religion: rules. Rules that seemed arbitrary and overly concrete. As that crumbled, the other tenets of religion started to make less and less sense. But back to your point, it's also easier to leave the thinking up to someone else, the cosmic authority says so. It's like the kid who doesn't want to do something and blames it on his parents, "My dad would be so mad at me!".

I think it's because humans evolved needing to live in social groups to survive. Humans are also very hierarchical, and community identity is often a proxy for a person's sense of self worth and value. Religion often gives a person identity is being saved or chosen or special in some way because of their faith and their membership in a faith group. And often rules are a way of keeping your identity separate from outsiders which is why very insular groups like Amish or Charedi Jews or fundentmalist Polygamous Mormons have incredibly complicated sets of rules to keep them separate from secular Jews.

I think that people want to do good in this world but I think we are combating laziness and often lack of social connection. I think this is especially true now that more people lead a more isolated life due to a variety of factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Nothing more.

That does not answer OP. Atheism being definitionally the absence of theism, does not mean that exhausts what any given atheist believes.

EG Karl Marx was an atheist. But he was ALSO a dialectical materialist and an historical determinist. He had many specific beliefs - though many other atheists did not and do not share them.

So OP needs to ask a better question, because that is the one thing all Atheists have in common.

Why don't you explain what you believe instead of trying to answer for all/other Atheists.

Individual atheist believe all sorts of things -- that certain types of music are good or bad, same for literature, sports, politics, etc. The only thing they are sure to have in common is what they don't believe - which is in God.

To ask what atheists believe and expect a long answer, implies that atheists have a set of common beliefs, like the various religions do - which is not true. It's important for people asking about atheism to understand that. Atheism, as someone already said, is not a belief system. It's not believing in God.

[Anonymous]

Well, I believe in the soul... the cock...the pussy... the small of a woman's back... the hangin' curveball... high fiber... good scotch... that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap... I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

Goodnight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Nothing more.

That does not answer OP. Atheism being definitionally the absence of theism, does not mean that exhausts what any given atheist believes.

EG Karl Marx was an atheist. But he was ALSO a dialectical materialist and an historical determinist. He had many specific beliefs - though many other atheists did not and do not share them.

So OP needs to ask a better question, because that is the one thing all Atheists have in common.

Why don't you explain what you believe instead of trying to answer for all/other Atheists.

Individual atheist believe all sorts of things -- that certain types of music are good or bad, same for literature, sports, politics, etc. The only thing they are sure to have in common is what they don't believe - which is in God.

To ask what atheists believe and expect a long answer, implies that atheists have a set of common beliefs, like the various religions do - which is not true. It's important for people asking about atheism to understand that. Atheism, as someone already said, is not a belief system. It's not believing in God.

There are athiest who are Buddhist ... Why don't you explain what you believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Nothing more.

That does not answer OP. Atheism being definitionally the absence of theism, does not mean that exhausts what any given atheist believes.

EG Karl Marx was an atheist. But he was ALSO a dialectical materialist and an historical determinist. He had many specific beliefs - though many other atheists did not and do not share them.

Welp. I guess it's like autism. You know one atheist and his beliefs...and you know one atheist and his beliefs.

It's kind of like asking what do religious people believe? And leaving it at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, I believe in the soul... the cock...the pussy... the small of a woman's back... the hangin' curveball... high fiber... good scotch... that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap... I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

Goodnight.

Does the soul live past the body?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I believe in the soul... the cock...the pussy... the small of a woman's back... the hangin' curveball... high fiber... good scotch... that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap... I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

Goodnight.

Does the soul live past the body?

You'll have to ask Crash Davis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you explain your thought and feelings about life?

Our religion is politics.

[Anonymous]

I can only speak for myself. But I believe that organized religion is populated, for the most part, with a few wolves, and a lot of sheep.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/05/29/a-televangelist-wants-his-followers-to-pay-for-a-54-million-private-jet-its-his-fourth-plane/?utm_term=.1402c03e8643

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I'm honestly disturbed by people who are convinced that the only reason they want to act like a good person is because of some great cosmic award and not because it is inherently wrong lie, rape steal or cheat.

It reminds me of how we use sticker charts to teach children how to do their chores and ultimately we hope that children will learn to do their chores without needing external reward, because they understand the intrinsic benefit of cleaning their room.

They may think that because their religion has taught them that, but I think the majority of people would do the right thing most of the time without religion.

But even look at this thread. Adults are asking in all seriousness why anyone would give to charity or not lie, steal, or murder if they don't believe in god.

That's not what people are suggesting. I'm the agnostic who wrote the long post. No, I'm not suggesting the only reason people wouldn't do bad things is because of god. What I'm saying is that most people will do the right thing when it's EASY to do the right thing and/or when the right thing doesn't work against their self-interest.

The difficult part is whether or not people do the right thing when it's hard to do so, when it would mean significant sacrifice on their part, when it's against their self-interest, and/or when no one will find out if they do the wrong thing. In philosophy, it's often discussed in relation to the ring of gyges.

I've met a lot of people who talk a good game about what's right, but I've seen that when it comes down to their own self-interest, if they can get away with not doing what is right and it benefits them, they choose that path (doing the wrong thing). The people who will do what is right, even when it hurts to do so, are the people who have a very strong moral code and a strong sense of obligation to that code. Those people are few and far between (religious, atheist, or otherwise). I do think that for society, it is good to have some sense of a cosmic justice system, a notion that even if no one is looking, you will still be held accountable for doing wrong actions. On the whole, that helps people who don't think critically about ethics, who don't have a very well-developed sense of morality, and who don't have the self-discipline to hold themselves to the values they espouse.

I know atheists who have ideas about ethics, but when it comes down to their own actions, they basically do what has the net gain for them (i.e., most benefit with lowest risk of negative consequences). That's not to say there aren't plenty of religious hypocrites out there. But all of the people on here who wax eloquent about justice and compassion and helping their fellow man, I wonder, beyond throwing some money at charitable organizations, how that plays out in their daily lives. Most people hope for the best, but they're content acting in their self-interest as long as they and their own come out okay. The challenge of a society with majority atheists will be to instill a strong enough sense of obligation to other people and to ethical principles to overcome self-centeredness. It's not that religion does it perfectly, but it at least offers some sort of framework, some higher cause.

I'm all for humanism, but the only people I've met who are committed to it enough for it to guide their everyday actions are people who have a strong sense of duty. Usually, they are people who are atheists/agnostic now but grew up in a religion in which that sense of duty was ingrained in them. So while they may no longer believe in the god or gods of that religion, the sense of duty and obligation and importance of morality have remained and inform their daily actions.

Even if the cosmic justice system is made up? Sounds like you're saying it's better to fool people than to be honest --that most people can't be good on their own or by following the rules of society for which there are concrete rewards and punishments, so it's better to make up some "cosmic justice system" to keep them in line.

I'm guessing that in this system there are a few people in the know, the atheists and agnostics, who go along with it, not to upset the less sophisticated majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I'm honestly disturbed by people who are convinced that the only reason they want to act like a good person is because of some great cosmic award and not because it is inherently wrong lie, rape steal or cheat.

It reminds me of how we use sticker charts to teach children how to do their chores and ultimately we hope that children will learn to do their chores without needing external reward, because they understand the intrinsic benefit of cleaning their room.

They may think that because their religion has taught them that, but I think the majority of people would do the right thing most of the time without religion.

But even look at this thread. Adults are asking in all seriousness why anyone would give to charity or not lie, steal, or murder if they don't believe in god.

That's not what people are suggesting. I'm the agnostic who wrote the long post. No, I'm not suggesting the only reason people wouldn't do bad things is because of god. What I'm saying is that most people will do the right thing when it's EASY to do the right thing and/or when the right thing doesn't work against their self-interest.

The difficult part is whether or not people do the right thing when it's hard to do so, when it would mean significant sacrifice on their part, when it's against their self-interest, and/or when no one will find out if they do the wrong thing. In philosophy, it's often discussed in relation to the ring of gyges.

I've met a lot of people who talk a good game about what's right, but I've seen that when it comes down to their own self-interest, if they can get away with not doing what is right and it benefits them, they choose that path (doing the wrong thing). The people who will do what is right, even when it hurts to do so, are the people who have a very strong moral code and a strong sense of obligation to that code. Those people are few and far between (religious, atheist, or otherwise). I do think that for society, it is good to have some sense of a cosmic justice system, a notion that even if no one is looking, you will still be held accountable for doing wrong actions. On the whole, that helps people who don't think critically about ethics, who don't have a very well-developed sense of morality, and who don't have the self-discipline to hold themselves to the values they espouse.

I know atheists who have ideas about ethics, but when it comes down to their own actions, they basically do what has the net gain for them (i.e., most benefit with lowest risk of negative consequences). That's not to say there aren't plenty of religious hypocrites out there. But all of the people on here who wax eloquent about justice and compassion and helping their fellow man, I wonder, beyond throwing some money at charitable organizations, how that plays out in their daily lives. Most people hope for the best, but they're content acting in their self-interest as long as they and their own come out okay. The challenge of a society with majority atheists will be to instill a strong enough sense of obligation to other people and to ethical principles to overcome self-centeredness. It's not that religion does it perfectly, but it at least offers some sort of framework, some higher cause.

I'm all for humanism, but the only people I've met who are committed to it enough for it to guide their everyday actions are people who have a strong sense of duty. Usually, they are people who are atheists/agnostic now but grew up in a religion in which that sense of duty was ingrained in them. So while they may no longer believe in the god or gods of that religion, the sense of duty and obligation and importance of morality have remained and inform their daily actions.

Even if the cosmic justice system is made up? Sounds like you're saying it's better to fool people than to be honest --that most people can't be good on their own or by following the rules of society for which there are concrete rewards and punishments, so it's better to make up some "cosmic justice system" to keep them in line.

I'm guessing that in this system there are a few people in the know, the atheists and agnostics, who go along with it, not to upset the less sophisticated majority.

Also, sounds like you're saying that only being raised in a religion can instill the needed "sense of duty" that keeps people on the straight and narrow, and that people raised without religion can't possibly have it. This is clearly not so, as many dutiful people raised without religion can attest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I'm honestly disturbed by people who are convinced that the only reason they want to act like a good person is because of some great cosmic award and not because it is inherently wrong lie, rape steal or cheat.

It reminds me of how we use sticker charts to teach children how to do their chores and ultimately we hope that children will learn to do their chores without needing external reward, because they understand the intrinsic benefit of cleaning their room.

They may think that because their religion has taught them that, but I think the majority of people would do the right thing most of the time without religion.

But even look at this thread. Adults are asking in all seriousness why anyone would give to charity or not lie, steal, or murder if they don't believe in god.

That's not what people are suggesting. I'm the agnostic who wrote the long post. No, I'm not suggesting the only reason people wouldn't do bad things is because of god. What I'm saying is that most people will do the right thing when it's EASY to do the right thing and/or when the right thing doesn't work against their self-interest.

The difficult part is whether or not people do the right thing when it's hard to do so, when it would mean significant sacrifice on their part, when it's against their self-interest, and/or when no one will find out if they do the wrong thing. In philosophy, it's often discussed in relation to the ring of gyges.

I've met a lot of people who talk a good game about what's right, but I've seen that when it comes down to their own self-interest, if they can get away with not doing what is right and it benefits them, they choose that path (doing the wrong thing). The people who will do what is right, even when it hurts to do so, are the people who have a very strong moral code and a strong sense of obligation to that code. Those people are few and far between (religious, atheist, or otherwise). I do think that for society, it is good to have some sense of a cosmic justice system, a notion that even if no one is looking, you will still be held accountable for doing wrong actions. On the whole, that helps people who don't think critically about ethics, who don't have a very well-developed sense of morality, and who don't have the self-discipline to hold themselves to the values they espouse.

I know atheists who have ideas about ethics, but when it comes down to their own actions, they basically do what has the net gain for them (i.e., most benefit with lowest risk of negative consequences). That's not to say there aren't plenty of religious hypocrites out there. But all of the people on here who wax eloquent about justice and compassion and helping their fellow man, I wonder, beyond throwing some money at charitable organizations, how that plays out in their daily lives. Most people hope for the best, but they're content acting in their self-interest as long as they and their own come out okay. The challenge of a society with majority atheists will be to instill a strong enough sense of obligation to other people and to ethical principles to overcome self-centeredness. It's not that religion does it perfectly, but it at least offers some sort of framework, some higher cause.

I'm all for humanism, but the only people I've met who are committed to it enough for it to guide their everyday actions are people who have a strong sense of duty. Usually, they are people who are atheists/agnostic now but grew up in a religion in which that sense of duty was ingrained in them. So while they may no longer believe in the god or gods of that religion, the sense of duty and obligation and importance of morality have remained and inform their daily actions.

That's an interesting point. People are also inherently lazy. It's hard enough to organize a group of like minded individuals when they have a common goal, like getting PTA volunteers. The benefit of religion is a community, where the benefits of participation are both social - hanging out with like minded friends and ostensibly rewarding in a religious sense - points for good behavior. There is more incentive to actively do good works. That said, I think you can be a be a "good" and ethical person without helping your fellow humans just by doing no harm.

I do believe on the whole most people are good and that is because the majority of us are not psych/sociopaths. I wonder if there's not some sort of brain wiring that makes some of us crave rules and authority. That's one of the first things that drove me from organized religion: rules. Rules that seemed arbitrary and overly concrete. As that crumbled, the other tenets of religion started to make less and less sense. But back to your point, it's also easier to leave the thinking up to someone else, the cosmic authority says so. It's like the kid who doesn't want to do something and blames it on his parents, "My dad would be so mad at me!".

I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't think most people are inherently good. I think most people don't go around murdering and stealing because they are brought up in a social context in which those things are clearly deemed as not just wrong but also things that will result in negative consequences.

If most people were good, we wouldn't need laws and police and the structure of civilization. It's been a long road to where we are now (modern, civilized society).

I also think you are misunderstanding my point. My point isn't that most people are lazy. My point is that most people are primarily concerned with their own self-interest, and that self-interest trumps any value they claim to have. So they'll do the right thing so long as it aligns with their own self-interest (or perhaps they know doing the wrong thing will result in severe consequences).

The extremes that people mention (murder, stealing, etc.) are things that have pretty strong potential consequences (jail time). That's a pretty strong motivating factor for a lot of people (not all, though). Where it gets murkier is in the day to day stuff and the interpersonal stuff that isn't illegal (adultery, betrayal, workplace politics/dynamics, friendships, school). That's where it really becomes clear if a person just talks the talk about ethics or walks the walk.

I do think that it takes a very strong moral code for people to choose the right thing in many situations that arise in those contexts, things that don't involve criminal behavior but are in fact ethical questions.

I used to be very naive and assume most people have a strong sense of doing the right thing, even when it is hard or involves sacrifice, but as I've gotten older, I've seen that that isn't the case. I do, however, see that the people who do live up to their values are people who were raised with a very strong sense of ethical obligation. In the case of atheists/agnostics I know, the ones I feel do live out their values and have a strong sense of ethics are ones who were raised with a strong religious presence but then later abandoned the notions of god(s) and the stories that go with that but kept the sense of self-discipline. And ethics does involve self-discipline, not in the sense of not being lazy, but in the sense of holding yourself to a standard even when it's tempting and easy to diverge from that standard.

I think that's why so many people find religion when they have kids. It's because it's the easiest way to really start out with that kind of disciplined view of morality, especially for young kids who aren't yet equipped to fully understand the why behind ethical concepts.

That's not to say there aren't alternatives, but religion is kind of the easiest way to go about it. That's what I'm saying.

[Anonymous]

My main concern with athiests is that in the absence of religion they seem to turn to other forms of man made groups for their sense of self and right and wrong. Not all, but some do and they seem to not understand that anything created by man is flawed and there will be no perfect world. Man will always act in their self interest. I hear some agnostics and atheist talk about their political parties, health groups, etc. as if these man made groups have all the answers. I think one thing religion teaches you is that you'll never live up to your ideals and you have to be ok with that and still believe and work to better yourself anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one said they are atheist organizations. What was was said is that they are not religiously affiliated. Atheists can and do give to charities ,many of them secular. We don't need an Atheist Charity™ to give back.

Perhaps that poster is having difficulty grasping this concept because there is no common name, building or other identifier involved. Maybe if there were a banner that said "atheists donate/volunteer here" it would be easier.

Sometimes atheists even travel to third world countries to help out, volunteer for various organizations, etc. but there would be no way of identifying those people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I'm honestly disturbed by people who are convinced that the only reason they want to act like a good person is because of some great cosmic award and not because it is inherently wrong lie, rape steal or cheat.

It reminds me of how we use sticker charts to teach children how to do their chores and ultimately we hope that children will learn to do their chores without needing external reward, because they understand the intrinsic benefit of cleaning their room.

They may think that because their religion has taught them that, but I think the majority of people would do the right thing most of the time without religion.

But even look at this thread. Adults are asking in all seriousness why anyone would give to charity or not lie, steal, or murder if they don't believe in god.

That's not what people are suggesting. I'm the agnostic who wrote the long post. No, I'm not suggesting the only reason people wouldn't do bad things is because of god. What I'm saying is that most people will do the right thing when it's EASY to do the right thing and/or when the right thing doesn't work against their self-interest.

The difficult part is whether or not people do the right thing when it's hard to do so, when it would mean significant sacrifice on their part, when it's against their self-interest, and/or when no one will find out if they do the wrong thing. In philosophy, it's often discussed in relation to the ring of gyges.

I've met a lot of people who talk a good game about what's right, but I've seen that when it comes down to their own self-interest, if they can get away with not doing what is right and it benefits them, they choose that path (doing the wrong thing). The people who will do what is right, even when it hurts to do so, are the people who have a very strong moral code and a strong sense of obligation to that code. Those people are few and far between (religious, atheist, or otherwise). I do think that for society, it is good to have some sense of a cosmic justice system, a notion that even if no one is looking, you will still be held accountable for doing wrong actions. On the whole, that helps people who don't think critically about ethics, who don't have a very well-developed sense of morality, and who don't have the self-discipline to hold themselves to the values they espouse.

I know atheists who have ideas about ethics, but when it comes down to their own actions, they basically do what has the net gain for them (i.e., most benefit with lowest risk of negative consequences). That's not to say there aren't plenty of religious hypocrites out there. But all of the people on here who wax eloquent about justice and compassion and helping their fellow man, I wonder, beyond throwing some money at charitable organizations, how that plays out in their daily lives. Most people hope for the best, but they're content acting in their self-interest as long as they and their own come out okay. The challenge of a society with majority atheists will be to instill a strong enough sense of obligation to other people and to ethical principles to overcome self-centeredness. It's not that religion does it perfectly, but it at least offers some sort of framework, some higher cause.

I'm all for humanism, but the only people I've met who are committed to it enough for it to guide their everyday actions are people who have a strong sense of duty. Usually, they are people who are atheists/agnostic now but grew up in a religion in which that sense of duty was ingrained in them. So while they may no longer believe in the god or gods of that religion, the sense of duty and obligation and importance of morality have remained and inform their daily actions.

Even if the cosmic justice system is made up? Sounds like you're saying it's better to fool people than to be honest --that most people can't be good on their own or by following the rules of society for which there are concrete rewards and punishments, so it's better to make up some "cosmic justice system" to keep them in line.

I'm guessing that in this system there are a few people in the know, the atheists and agnostics, who go along with it, not to upset the less sophisticated majority.

Also, sounds like you're saying that only being raised in a religion can instill the needed "sense of duty" that keeps people on the straight and narrow, and that people raised without religion can't possibly have it. This is clearly not so, as many dutiful people raised without religion can attest.

No, I never said religion is the only way. It's the easiest way.

No, I'm not saying that it's better to make up some cosmic justice system to keep people in line. I'm saying that having a sense of something bigger than their individual selves is a strong motivating factor to be ethical. Again, religion isn't the only way to do that, but without religion, you have to have something in its place. A strong sense of community, of something that binds people, obligates people to each other, that would work in place of religion, but that's hard to establish. Where it does exist, it can lead to a kind of tribalism. I think in past times, that's why patriotism was encouraged. A shared identity is a way to motivate people to see other people's interests as equal to their own. But that is very hard to achieve. Read threads on this board.

I do believe that religion fills that space in some ways. It has its own issues, though. But without it, I think you do need a shared ethical system and a shared sense of obligation in order to hold a society together. Otherwise, it eventually devolves into every man for himself.