What if Atheism was the dominant concept?

[The_Genius]

What if - instead of religions - atheism was the dominant concept in this planet?

Although atheists label religions as "myths", Holy Books do offer moral guidance for the masses. If atheism was dominant, what type of morals, good values would exist within human beings? We have already seen what Stalin and Mao did to their own people. Even though many people like to say "Hitler was a christian", we all know that he never followed Christian doctrines, he was a socialist. and who was the Father of Socialism? Karl Marx, an atheist... What if most world leaders were atheists too?

Countries with large atheist population also tops the chart when it comes to highest suicide rates....

I know for a fact that this site has many atheists...

So what type of morals do you have? Since you do not follow any religious commandments, what is your views on murder, adultery, suicide and crime? I'm not implying atheists are criminals. However, since you don't believe in punishment in the afterlife, what is your views on deeds that are considered as 'immoral' by religions?

[Athena]

Quote by: The_Genius What if - instead of religions - atheism was the dominant concept in this planet? Although atheists label religions as "myths", Holy Books do offer moral guidance for the masses. If atheism was dominant, what type of morals, good values would exist within human beings? We have already seen what Stalin and Mao did to their own people. Even though many people like to say "Hitler was a christian", we all know that he never followed Christian doctrines, he was a socialist. and who was the Father of Socialism? Karl Marx, an atheist... What if most world leaders were atheists too? Countries with large atheist population also tops the chart when it comes to highest suicide rates.... I know for a fact that this site has many atheists... So what type of morals do you have? Since you do not follow any religious commandments, what is your views on murder, adultery, suicide and crime? I'm not implying atheists are criminals. However, since you don't believe in punishment in the afterlife, what is your views on deeds that are considered as 'immoral' by religions?

Good question. Part of the answer is in our biological programming as social animals. That is we share much in common with dog packs and primates as social animals. Books such as the "Science of Good & Evil" explain how our biology make us good. Of course that is too much information for one post.

Next we have humanism which is basically a study of Greek and Latin explanations of the human ideal. We are very impressionable and a good education brings out the best in us.

We are greatly improved when we have full tummies and security, and we have the ability of planning for this. Never before in our history have we had the capabilities we have today, and we are not accustom to having so much power, so we are not doing well yet. We are technology smart but not wise at this time in history. However, there is much human effort to improve the condition of mankind around the world. Give us time. We might figure it out.

Coming with the full tummies is new ideas of child rearing that promise better results compared to beating the devil out of our children. I love the Virtues Project, which teaches the language of virtues. This goes with the importance of good education. The Virtues Project results in better parenting, and citizens motivated to be virtueous.

Why do you think a fear of God and punishment after death is necessary? That you can point to some people who we have villianized, proves nothing. I think Bush is right up there with Hitler and he thinks he is a born again Christian, but his position in his family mean serious character flaws. On the other hand I am not a perfect human being, but when it comes to morality, I think I am more moral than many Christians.

We have plenty of Native Americans who are not of the God of Abraham religions, but maintain traditional beliefs, and very are wise and admirable people.

And why point a finger at Karl Marx? What he do so wrong? Personally Karl Marx was not a bad guy. Some think his philosophy is flawed, but that doesn't make him a bad guy. And the Communist who came after his philopophy, practice what Christians preach. What do think the evils are?

[webjedi]

Religions originally were an attempt to influence the weather, the tides, the harvest, and so on; they had little to do with the rules of society. Those were enforced by monarchs or warlords.

Monotheism was an evolution of human thinking. Ultimately it led to the codification of law based not on the whims of the latest dictator, but on rules of conduct enforced by a power that could not be challenged or usurped (i.e. the 10 Commandments).

Atheists don't like these rules. They might say the believe in science, and that science preculdes the existence of God. There is no way to prove nor disprove the existence of God or any other supernatural being (e.g. angels, the devil, etc.) - especialy using the scientific method. You may be able to present proof that satisfies the argument to your personal satisfaction, but you can't irrefutably prove it. Gravity is irrefutable, the nature of the supernatural is not.

They may honestly deep down in their heart of hearts believe that their opposition is to the misdeeds of religious people, but we all serve our own interests, and, for a lot of people, if they can find a way out of feeling guilty about their actions they will do so. Besides, proposing that they are so concerned about the immorality of other people begs the question: who is to say what religious people - or any people - are wrong in their deeds?

Ahena aruges that because our lower order needs are met - namely food, shelter, etc., that the nature of society has changed. But the fact is if you go into S.E. DC and see what the impoverished people live like, and then you go to your average household in an eastern Bloc country you would see that the people in our ghettos have a higher standard of living of the average person in emerging industry societies, and way up near the 85% mark in non-industrialized nations. There is no starvation in Washington, D.C. And yet, in DC, there were 195 murders and 26,133 thefts of property in 2005. The fact is once a person's lower order needs are met they seek to satisfy their higher order needs or wants.

And this is the same problem that plauges Marxism, Communism, and other forms of populism - the rules are back to the point society was at before monotheism, and ultimately the person or group who is the most ambitious and resourceful ends up making the rules. This is exactly the problem with atheism. Nobody is subject to unassailable rules. The rules are always fluid, and this leads to what we saw in the 20th century - namely the murder of +100 Million people by communist and fascist societies.



Thus, the flaws of man preclude atheism as a succesful means of societal organization.


So if I had to sum up the answer to your question is that man wouldn't be anywhere near the level of advancement we currently observe.

[Osborn F Enready]

One blind faith is just as bad as the next.

Its best to just be done with blind faith, and "keep it real".

[Jack]

Atheism doesn't address morals. It relates to one thing only, a lack of any belief in gods.

I daresay there have been as many evil dictators who have been theists as there have been who were atheists. Obviously for some, their attitude toward gods has had little effect on their behavior.

Since atheists have no belief in gods to scare them into good behavior, it's the responsibility of each individual to develop a moral code that allows them to live in harmony with their society. Certain moral standards like honesty, a willingness to help others or respect for others are observed by theists and non-theists alike. Other morals that arise solely from religious teachings may not be shared by atheists. Attitudes toward sexuality, for example. Atheists may be more accepting of sexuality that theists object to, because we are free to think for ourselves, free of religious influence. But atheism itself has nothing to say about that. It simply provides a gods-free basis from which to extrapolate our individual moral system.

If atheists were as immoral as theists perceive them to be, we'd be far more noticeable. And if theists were as moral as they perceive themselves to be, our world would be a far better place than it is. Since we're all human, we often fail to live up to the standards of behavior we set for ourselves.

Most of the morals I practice stem from one core attitude; do no harm, respect others as equals, love is a noble emotion and should be the basis for all my actions. Do I observe all my moral attitudes 100% of the time? No, I'm as fallible as any other human. But I try, I make amends when I fail and I continue to strive to be a decent person.

[Jack]

Countries with large atheist population also tops the chart when it comes to highest suicide rates....

Which countries did you have in mind. The U.S. is about 80% Christian, and our crime rate is deplorable.

[phoenix_fire]

I think that if atheism had had a more dominant hold in the recent past (and don't think it hasn't had influence) then Social Darwinism would probably have become more prevalent. It perhaps would even have taken longer for slaves and women to achieve rights. WASA (as opposed to WASP) men would still be running everything. Gay marriage would be legal everywhere. The abortion clinics would become much more lucrative because more couples would do whatever they wanted with the happy thought that they didn't have to face the consequences. Human life would be discarded easily. There would be far fewer people engaged in things like teaching and counseling and other industries that do not pay well but provide valuable service to others. Stem cell research would already have been tried and discarded as the junk science it is. The party system would look different. Radical Muslims would hate the US even more. Euthanasia would become popular. There would be a push for people of faith to get psychological help because obviously a barbaric tradition programmed them that way and no rational man apart from mental and emotional duress would believe such things. Faith-based organizations would be closely monitored. Many so-called Christians who move as the tide of culture takes them would suddenly forget their beliefs. The remaining ones would believe all the more fervently. Drugs would be legal, but regulated. Nationalism would be stronger. There would be more wars.

Atheists who think you could make the world a utopia if only you were in charge would do well to remember the corrupting nature of power.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Ish Which countries did you have in mind. The U.S. is about 80% Christian, and our crime rate is deplorable.

It’s irrelevant really. When it comes to something like society there are way too many confounding variables to infer causation from a simple correlation. It was an idiotic argument, as was the association fallacy of “Stalin was an atheist”.

[Athena]

Quote by: webjedi Religions originally were an attempt to influence the weather, the tides, the harvest, and so on; they had little to do with the rules of society. Those were enforced by monarchs or warlords. Monotheism was an evolution of human thinking. Ultimately it led to the codification of law based not on the whims of the latest dictator, but on rules of conduct enforced by a power that could not be challenged or usurped (i.e. the 10 Commandments). Atheists don't like these rules. They might say the believe in science, and that science preculdes the existence of God. There is no way to prove nor disprove the existence of God or any other supernatural being (e.g. angels, the devil, etc.) - especialy using the scientific method. You may be able to present proof that satisfies the argument to your personal satisfaction, but you can't irrefutably prove it. Gravity is irrefutable, the nature of the supernatural is not. They may honestly deep down in their heart of hearts believe that their opposition is to the misdeeds of religious people, but we all serve our own interests, and, for a lot of people, if they can find a way out of feeling guilty about their actions they will do so. Besides, proposing that they are so concerned about the immorality of other people begs the question: who is to say what religious people - or any people - are wrong in their deeds? Ahena aruges that because our lower order needs are met - namely food, shelter, etc., that the nature of society has changed. But the fact is if you go into S.E. DC and see what the impoverished people live like, and then you go to your average household in an eastern Bloc country you would see that the people in our ghettos have a higher standard of living of the average person in emerging industry societies, and way up near the 85% mark in non-industrialized nations. There is no starvation in Washington, D.C. And yet, in DC, there were 195 murders and 26,133 thefts of property in 2005. The fact is once a person's lower order needs are met they seek to satisfy their higher order needs or wants. And this is the same problem that plauges Marxism, Communism, and other forms of populism - the rules are back to the point society was at before monotheism, and ultimately the person or group who is the most ambitious and resourceful ends up making the rules. This is exactly the problem with atheism. Nobody is subject to unassailable rules. The rules are always fluid, and this leads to what we saw in the 20th century - namely the murder of +100 Million people by communist and fascist societies. Thus, the flaws of man preclude atheism as a succesful means of societal organization. So if I had to sum up the answer to your question is that man wouldn't be anywhere near the level of advancement we currently observe.

I think your explanation is lacking in information. I use the name Athena, because she was Athens' Goddess of Liberty, Justice and the Defense of those who stand for these values. She didn't make laws for man, but taught them to make their own laws. I am speaking of democracy.

Under this system the laws can be changed as our knowledge increases, and with new knowledge we reason why a law should be made or changed.
Under this system, laws are based our knowledge of universal laws. These laws do not change, only our understanding of them changes. As Christians came to understand this, they adopted the idea of knowing God through the study of nature, including human nature. Christianity with humanism is much, better than Christianity without it. In the past, and today, Christianity has caused much trouble, because of its lack of humanism.

Cicero was a great Roman statesman and he educated himself in Athens. Please, read carefully, and then if you want, argue why this is not a good way to go. Oh, keep in mind this is long before Christianity.

"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valued for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment."

[Jack]

You credit atheism with far more influence than it could ever have. Not accepting the concept of gods does not automatically infer that "evil" would reign, society would come apart and selfishness would rule. Are you crediting the fear of gods as the sole reason humans behave themselves?

Human life would be discarded easily.

I'm not sure what would lead you to that conclusion. Atheists are capable of appreciating this life more than theists. We don't have a belief system that assures us we'll be taken care of and those who don't think like we do will be punished for eternity for their disbelief. We value every day, since this life is the only chance we'll get to experience it. We value every other human as an equal. Atheism removes the wall of seperation between humans. We have no basis for feeling superior to or inferior to any other person.

An atheist develops morals to make this life better for themselves and those around them. We don't do so in hopes of eternal rewards or out of fear of eternal punishment.

[Athena]

"Every duty we omit obsures some truth we should have known."

"To run out of the path of duty is to run into the way of danger."

"He who is false to the present duty breadks a thread in the loom and will find the flaw in the pattern, when, perhaps, it will be too late to repair it."

"Duty frowns on you when you flee from her, but when you follow her she smiles."

The every-day cares and duties which men call drudgery are the weights and counterpoises of the clock of time, giving its pendulum a true vibration and its hands a regular motion. And, when they cease to hang upon its wheels, the pendulum no longer swings, then hands no longer work, the clock stands still."

How about, even in poverty a person can be noble? We can teach the highest of morality without religions which some find quite unbelievable, by teaching a person to reason and offering a standard of nobility based on good reasoning and an understanding of our nature.

[Athena]

Quote by: Isherwood You credit atheism with far more influence than it could ever have. Not accepting the concept of gods does not automatically infer that "evil" would reign, society would come apart and selfishness would rule. Are you crediting the fear of gods as the sole reason humans behave themselves? I'm not sure what would lead you to that conclusion. Atheists are capable of appreciating this life more than theists. We don't have a belief system that assures us we'll be taken care of and those who don't think like we do will be punished for eternity for their disbelief. We value every day, since this life is the only chance we'll get to experience it. We value every other human as an equal. Atheism removes the wall of seperation between humans. We have no basis for feeling superior to or inferior to any other person. An atheist develops morals to make this life better for themselves and those around them. We don't do so in hopes of eternal rewards or out of fear of eternal punishment.

Now that is good reasoning! We also don't think a God is going to send birds to feed people, so we better think of aways of ending world hunger. All human problems are resolved by humans moved to do so, instead of waiting for a God to take care of things, or believing bad things happen because a God is punishing people. Like letting AIDS spread, because thinking it is God's punishment of bad people, killing innocent women and children, and people who are obviously loved, such as movie stars.

One of the most serious errors of religious people is not realizing the good of humanity. It is not religion that makes people good, but our biological make up as social animals, and understanding this truth would go a loooong ways in ending the fighting done by religious people, who are mistakingly killing good people, because they have a false belief about what it is to be human and why people are good.

[rez]

Quote by: The_Genius What if - instead of religions - atheism was the dominant concept in this planet?

I, as an atheist, would hate it because people like you would corrupt and misunderstand everything about it - just like what you displayed in this post and with your Muslim teachings.

Quote by: The_Genius Although atheists label religions as "myths", Holy Books do offer moral guidance for the masses.

These "holy" or "magical" books you speak of also offer people a thousand year old view of reality. Some enjoy thinking that those magical books contain truth because either hocas pocs magic was performed or a prediction was made. Of course most religious people just refer to their magical books as examples of situations that had occurred in society. They may even read all religious books to help have a broad view of how humans decided to structure and organize society as they saw fit.

Quote by: The_Genius If atheism was dominant, what type of morals, good values would exist within human beings?

People are already evil beings with their own agenda's and will be so with the presence of religion (hence Muslims and Christians blowing up buildings in the name of their god and it's morals provided).

Quote by: The_Genius What if most world leaders were atheists too?

They would corrupt and misunderstand it like you and your leaders do to your religion. I just wonder what an atheist reasons would be to commit genocide?

and just to let you know Hitler followed the Christian Social movement in Germany which could be compared to the Christian right in America.

Quote by: The_Genius However, since you don't believe in punishment in the afterlife, what is your views on deeds that are considered as 'immoral' by religions?

I think the idea behind "There is no love in fear" represents a good basis of what I find to be the guidelines in the way I act around others. When asked what religion I follow I say all. I see society has one cohesive force that is built upon individuals, so if one person is struggling then it would be wise to help that struggling person to make society that much better regardless of what political system exists. I feel as though reading one "holy" text is ignorant and that knowledge is pouring out of people's minds every day, so reading a lot is important. I am one of those kind of people that does not need to be told what is wrong because of the knowledge I gain from traveling and meeting other people. And again, punishment does not loom over my decision making because I know the punishment exists when I hurt other's and ultimately society.

[webjedi]

Damn you people post fast and furious don't you? No sooner do I respond to your post than you write another one. Anyway, here is my response to the following arguments:

Quote by: Isherwood Are you crediting the fear of gods as the sole reason humans behave themselves?

No, I am crediting the Ten Commandments as the foundation of our legal system. Fear of jailing keeps people from misbehaving, and in the past jailing usualy meant torture (hence the iron fist of the Catholic Church). However, I do find it difficult to bleive that most people don't modify their behavior due to the possibility that they will suffer after death.

Also, I do not argue against or for any aspect or part of atheist beliefs or concepts that does not in some way involve the Ten Commandments. In other words, my concept of the Universe is not based on simply a "deist" philosophy, it is based on a specific form of deism, which has it's roots in the handing down of laws from God - THE God. I cannot argue for any other philosophies because I do not share them.

Quote by: Isherwood Atheism doesn't address morals. It relates to one thing only, a lack of any belief in gods.

You are redirecting: not believing in something above you leads to the pursuit of your own selfish desires. Your statement is arguably correct, but you are misdirecting.

Quote by: Isherwood I daresay there have been as many evil dictators who have been theists as there have been who were atheists.

During the ~250 years of the Crusades no more than 5 Million people were killed. In just one century - the 20th - 100 Million people were killed by atheist governments. The argument that religion increases body count is not supported by empirical evidence.

Also, the bloodiest societies since the birth of Jesus have been the non-monotheistic ones:

Mongol Conquests - 13th Century - 40 Million people killed

An Lushan Revolt - 8th Century - 36 Million people killed

Fall of the Ming Dynasty - 17th Century - 25 Million people killed

Taiping Rebellion - 19th Century - 20 Million people killed

Some good men lie, some bad men do good deeds - what's your point? Everyone agrees murder is wrong, does that mean it won't happen? By your logic there is no point in having a law against murder since some people will not abide by it. Our legal system is founded on the principal that men are created equal by God - not made equal because you woke up this morning and decided it was so. You're saying we should throw that out??

Quote by: Isherwood Since atheists have no belief in gods to scare them into good behavior, it's the responsibility of each individual to develop a moral code that allows them to live in harmony with their society.

OK, so you pejoratively characterize belief in God as "scaring people into good behavior", well isn't that what our legal system does? Are you arguing that if there were no laws or jails crime would be at the same or lower level it is today?

Quote by: Isherwood free of religious influence. But atheism itself has nothing to say about that. It simply provides a gods-free basis from which to extrapolate our individual moral system.

The NAZIs created a "individual moral system", are you seriously going to argue "who am I to say the NAZIs were wrong?"

Quote by: Isherwood Atheists may be more accepting of sexuality that theists object to, because we are free to think for ourselves

Atheists may also order the execution of all homosexuals - like the NAZIs did.

Quote by: Isherwood If atheists were as immoral as theists perceive them to be, we'd be far more noticeable. And if theists were as moral as they perceive themselves to be, our world would be a far better place than it is. Since we're all human, we often fail to live up to the standards of behavior we set for ourselves.

I don't know who wins the noticeability contest you are eluding to, but I would venture to guess crime is lower among people who regularly attend a monotheistic place of worship than those who do not. A minority of populists living in a free society is expected.

Quote by: Isherwood Most of the morals I practice stem from one core attitude; do no harm, respect others as equals, love is a noble emotion and should be the basis for all my actions.

I don't get it, are you saying other people will love and respect others simply because you do? There are enough people in the World that, without laws, following their own "core attitudes" among a very small portion of them without objective rules of conduct would would lead to widespread crime and misery. Humans need objective rules or we kill each other. Period.

- -

Quote by: The Bacon Guy It was an idiotic argument, as was the association fallacy of “Stalin was an atheist”.

Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917)

PS: Don't insult people.

- -

Athena, you contradicted yourself:

Under this system the laws can be changed as our knowledge increases, and with new knowledge we reason why a law should be made or changed.

Under this system, laws are based our knowledge of universal laws. These laws do not change, only our understanding of them changes

Am I missing something?

Quote by: Athena In the past, and today, Christianity has caused much trouble, because of its lack of humanism.

Are you talking about the Christians who persecuted the Jews during the Inquisition or the Christians who hid the Jews from the NAZIs? Are you talking about the Catholics or the Protestants or the Baptists or the Mormons? You are lumping a lot of people together.

The splitting of Christianity into different denominations shows that Christians do process information and modify their conduct - religion has not precluded that. Philosophers don't have a lock on reason.

Quote by: Athena I use the name Athena, because she was Athens' Goddess of Liberty, Justice and the Defense of those who stand for these values. She didn't make laws for man, but taught them to make their own laws. I am speaking of democracy.

Apparently she wasn't a very good teacher. Democracy in Greece was nothing like our concept of democracy. Modern day Saudi Arabia is more democratic than Greece.

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Although Athenian democracy is today considered by many to have been a form of direct democracy, originally it had two distinguishing features: firstly the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to government offices and courts, and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens. In theory, all the Athenian citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state, but neither political rights, nor citizenship, were granted to women, slaves, or metics. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. Most of the officers & magistrates of Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other officers were elected.

BTW, why would a goddess - a female - not grant voting or even citizenship rights to women? Does that sound even remotely logical to you?

Quote by: Athena our biological make up as social animals makes people good

Prove it.

[webjedi]

Quote by: rez the Christian Social movement in Germany could be compared to the Christian right in America

OK, that's a pretty bold and offensive statement. I think you're trolling. You wanna back that up?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: webjedi Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917)

What's your point? Stalin's persecution of the church wasn't related to his atheism; it was related to his hatred of religion combined with his fascist views.

Quote by: webjedi PS: Don't insult people.

I didn't insult anyone; I said the argument was idiotic. Big difference.

[Jack]

I am crediting the Ten Commandments as the foundation of our legal system.

Our legal system is founded on the principal that men are created equal by God

It seems as though you already perceive the U.S. as a theocracy. So why is the following not the case in this country?

I would venture to guess crime is lower among people who regularly attend a monotheistic place of worship than those who do not.

I think you're trolling.

No, she isn't. Personal opinions are not automatically trolling when they disagree with yours.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: rez I, as an atheist, would hate it because people like you would corrupt and misunderstand everything about it - just like what you displayed in this post and with your Muslim teachings.

I would hate it too. I would hate to see an increase of suicide and abortion rate...

These "holy" or "magical" books you speak of also offer people a thousand year old view of reality. Some enjoy thinking that those magical books contain truth because either hocas pocs magic was performed or a prediction was made. Of course most religious people just refer to their magical books as examples of situations that had occurred in society. They may even read all religious books to help have a broad view of how humans decided to structure and organize society as they saw fit.

Your post reveals frustration. Take a chill pill and address the issue with relevant arguments. If you really want, make another thread about magic. back to the topic, what type of morals do you have? none?

They would corrupt and misunderstand it like you and your leaders do to your religion. I just wonder what an atheist reasons would be to commit genocide?

Killing the remaining theists?

and just to let you know Hitler followed the Christian Social movement in Germany which could be compared to the Christian right in America.

Social movemet is not following a doctrine.

I think the idea behind "There is no love in fear" represents a good basis of what I find to be the guidelines in the way I act around others. When asked what religion I follow I say all. I see society has one cohesive force that is built upon individuals, so if one person is struggling then it would be wise to help that struggling person to make society that much better regardless of what political system exists. I feel as though reading one "holy" text is ignorant and that knowledge is pouring out of people's minds every day, so reading a lot is important. I am one of those kind of people that does not need to be told what is wrong because of the knowledge I gain from traveling and meeting other people. And again, punishment does not loom over my decision making because I know the punishment exists when I hurt other's and ultimately society.

That's a good answer, really.