The best countries to live in are the least religious on a lot of levels.  Not only do they tend to have the lowest rates of crime and social dysfunction, they also tend to have progressive social support structures and reasonably low differentials between the richest and poorest citizens.

In the U.S., the most successful marriages are atheist-atheist.  That is, those marriages are the least likely to end in divorce.  The most likely divorcees are Protestant-Protestant.

The percentage of atheists in jail is less than 2%.  Atheists account for approximately 16% of the population.

The most likely Caucasian candidate to get pregnant as a teenager is a southern Protestant girl.  Unfortunately the black population is so deeply religious in America that it's damn hard to find any statistics about black teen atheists.  Black teenage girls are the most likely of any teen group to get pregnant.

The list of proofs that atheists are more moral than the religious could go on for days.

The statistics really make it hard, pretty much impossible to support the position that religion leads to improved levels of morality in a society, no matter how they would try to argue other factors are involved. They certainly at least suggest quite the reverse.

While we can't prove that non-belief leads to improved levels of morality in a general sense, we have enough data to essentially disprove that religious belief is essential for moral behaviour, IMHO.

If you haven't encountered anyone asserting that religion is necessary for the existence of a just and moral society, you didn't watch Bill Donohue in that last link I posted.  It's a fairly common argument.

Let's consider the watered-down version for a moment, though.  God is necessary for the concepts of good and evil to exist, or perhaps for them to be actuated as anything but abstract ideas.  Which God? There are tens of thousands to choose from, and many of them consider very different things to be moral or immoral, sometimes changing their stances on what is moral between incarnations.  The God of the Old Testament is a deplorable psychopath sated only by blood and sacrifice, but by the time God got around to writing the New Testament, things seemed to have changed a little.  This is not some semantic argument; people have been killed in the United States in the very recent past based on interpretations of Old Testament laws.

There's the crux of it. If one can interpret whatever moral code one wants from a given Holy Book, to say nothing of picking whatever God one likes from among the legions of aspiring deities, it means nothing to say that God is necessary for the existence of good and evil as some kind of universal forces.  Instinctive social urges and innate human morality are the common factor, not some nebulous and fractured father figure frowning at us sternly.

edit for great grammar justice.

And how do you know this? In what way is God necessary/sufficient for there to be any 'Good' or 'Evil' at all?

Well, I had just finish reading William Lane's Craig's new debate book entitled Is Goodness Without God Enough?  It defended the axiological argument for God's existence and his verision of the Divine Command ethic. Craig argues plausibly that-

If God exists, then objective morality exists.

This should not be an implausible premise even for the atheists.  It merely notes that God is sufficient for objective morality because the good would be rooted within God who is necessarily existing and essentially good. The second premise is much more controversial. It argues that

If objective morality exists, then God exists.

To support this implication, Craig attacks its negation-

objective morality exists and God does not

Craig argues that human evolution cannot produce objective moral facts that are any more applicable or have any more grounding than how to best raise crops. At best, Craig says, these trues are prudential and rely on questionable conflations like good and happiness. Moreover, Craig notes that there is no objective moral duty or moral accountability without God. For instance, it would be difficult to root objective moral duty to a sociopath without God or someone who just doesn't care about making you or themselves happy (or flourishing). The moral accountability is basically arguing that there is nothing to ensure that the bad are punished and the good are rewarded sans God. Apparently, for Craig, accountability is paramount to an ethical theory or else it leaves room for nihilism.

 the two premises-

if god exists, then objective morality exists

If objective morality exists, then God exists

produce-

God is necessary and sufficient for objective morality

my summary here is horribly inept. I suggest you buy the book.

Just so we're clear, you're saying that without a belief in God you would start robbing, raping and killing and would not stop for anything as long as you can stay ahead of law enforcement, right?

That's...scary.

Personally I do not enjoy inflicting harm on others, I get no pleasure from it. Well, not most of the time. Not to mention that I like the fact that my friends and family think highly of me and I do not bring shame to myself or them (by association with me) through my actions. Plus, there is the understanding way in the back of my brain that if we all acted like raving lunatics, nothing would ever get done and then who would be left to make those delicious Flame-broiled Whoppers?

For reference: The God who establishes the objective "Good" of Christianity calls for the death penalty to be applied to disobedient children, men who beat their slaves to death (if the slave dies within three days, it's cool if the slave dies 73 hours later), those who do any work at all on an arbitrary day, rape victims (if they were raped inside city limits), animals sexually abused by anyone (I mean, the animal too? That's a pretty crappy day for the animal), adultery, incest, prostitution, premarital sex, eating leavened bread during a certain holiday, perjury, contempt of court,  sex with a menstruating woman, teaching another religion, being an uncircumsized male, prophets whose prophecies do not come true (loljesus),  gluttony and excessive drinking, et cetera, et cetera. By the way, the death penalties established by the Bible require only the testimony of three witnesses to be carried out. 

If I believed such a being existed, I would find it morally repugnant.

Religious Moral Myth?

There was a myth that religion was moral?

Oh you are convincing those that didn't get it when they were six years old like me.

Ignorance is bliss.

I am so jaded. Don't even apply my mind to the religion debate any more. I'm fine thanks. I know where it is at. *does a bad little dance that makes everyone hate me*

Why is Rational Response Squad helping to explain this to morons? Aren't we better off keeping Atheism our secret. They are so easier to control under religion. Sigh, I know why and you are very nice and cool. Better than me.

Maybe I should post my own topic.

1) You're not likely to be among those claiming that religion has a monopoly on morality.

2) Your religion still won't have a monopoly on morality.

If such a religion existed, it would be my favorite religion. Although, along the same line of inquiry, if the tenets of this hypothetical religion only entailed science and rational thought, then how can it even be a religion? How can it exist? What would the followers believe? To start a religion around reality is virtually oxymoronic; the entire purpose of religious is to play with we don't know and/or supposedly can't know. 

Oh, and your art is awesome!!!! 

Thanks! It does.

Because the believers follow it religiously? And I do not think it only entails science and rational thought. We also believe in spirits, gods, and afterlife, etc.

I don't know how to answer this question. I guess it exists because people believe.

It helps when there isn't any dogma or a central authority like with organized religions.

I had thought the purpose religion was to bring spiritual fulfillment.

Thanks!

I intend to retire in Vermont. Does that make me a pre-emptive expatriate?

While the Dionysian cult does have its appeal, my passion lies more in Mesopotamia than in Rome. Of all the world history, none moves me in such a way as that of the ancient Near East. 

Hard enough to find a chapter of the S.C.A up here in the Ultima Thule west of Vinland, let alone a chapter of Nova Roma.

Not all that surprising considering that I haven't studied Latin in over 2 decades. I can still transliterate it in Phoenician ( Amat ) and Akkadian ( Assirtu ) though.

I think that the word puera would have served as well, but like I said, I'm a little rusty on the subject.

Much farther west. Bering Strait, Inupiaq village up above the Arctic circle.

Oh, Tyr, no! I'm a native Texan. Spent most of my life in the desert.

Derailed the thead enough already. Check your inbox.