No one needs God or religion to define their morality. The so-called "golden rule" applies no matter where it came from. If you are kind to other people and don't hurt them, you will have a clear conscience, feel good about yourself, and avoid prison. Simple. You don't have to have faith in God, either. You can trust in the good of humanity (other people) as humanists do. There is no such thing as "pure atheism", if you are saying that they don't follow any rules that may have some religious basis. Atheists live in this world the same as anyone else, and the world is dominated by religious people, laws, and culture. Religion used to dominate even more than it does now, so of course it has influenced many things. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules. It just means you follow them for other reasons than not wanting to go to hell. Many religions don't even have hell from what I understand, yet they still have morality. People don't avoid breaking laws just from the fear of punishment. They also do it because they feel it's wrong (for whatever reason) or they have no need to commit the crime in the first place. Read more about morality at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality Atheists do not eschew morality. They eschew superstition and anything that is non-scientific. Read this explanation http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html Suzanne

To all the atheists/agnostics who answer this question: IT IS HYPOTHETICAL!!! If you breakdown my question, and breakdown her answer, she didn't answer me at all. Case in point, she basically took out the most important part of my question early in her "answer", and I quote: Suzanne: "There is no such thing as 'pure atheism'..." I realize that! The combination of HOW & WOULD in the body of a question signifies that it is HYPOTHETICAL! Everyone in the world knows you can't just pick parts out of a question if it suits you! If this were a scientific test, and you took out one of the parts of your hypothesis to validate your answer - YOU KNOW you would have voided the results! In any case, here is the breakdown: TheWormSAF) In pure atheism, how would society determine morality or law? Suzanne Lanoue) There is no such thing as 'pure atheism' RESULT: My question is effectively removed from her answer. --------- TW) What inevitable punishment would you face? SL) a) People don't avoid breaking laws just from the fear of punishment. b) They also do it because they feel it's wrong (for whatever reason) or c) they have no need to commit the crime in the first place. COUNTERPOINT: Parts a & b are related. Wrongness is defined by the fear of negative consequences that come from an act. You will always be punished, whether you make yourself feel guilty for stealing a cookie from the jar all the way up to murder, where you are put in jail/executed. And part c is just absurd, just because you have NO NEED 'to do it' doesn't mean anything. Not being put in a situation, NEVER EVER factors in to a persons morality, in fact that's why we have morals, to help us act correctly in situations, and decide if we have no need! 3) Then, there is the last part of the question, which Suzanne completely contradicts herself, and makes this answer fundamentally useless: "No one needs God or religion to define their morality." Which is followed later by... "Atheists live in this world the same as anyone else, and the world is dominated by religious people, laws, and culture. Religion used to dominate even more than it does now, so of course it has influenced many things. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules." Suzanne, I thought you said in the first sentence of your "answer" no one needs God or religion to DEFINE morality. Well in the third paragraph, you seem to disagree with yourself! You said you didn't need God or religion to DEFINE morality for you, but later in the "answer" you seem just fine and dandy using the morals and rules DEFINED by the same God/Religion that you admittedly don't need!!! So, to all who are going to attempt to answer this question, answer it! Don't justify your personal beliefs and don't give me your agenda. Tell me how atheism -WITHOUT- religion/God would decide morality, since all morals and rules are made by Religions everywhere, or are based on them. I want to know how it could happen! So, answer the question, don't give a long drawn out book report on how YOU or AN ATHEIST ARE MORAL! ANSWER THE WHOLE QUESTION!

There isn't an answer to this. Atheism isn't so much a name for a system of beliefs, as the lack of a God in any particular system. So how one atheist determines morality would be different from another. Buddhists, for example, are atheists, and would determine morality according to the ideas of Buddhism. Someone who was a humanist might determine them differently, others might prefer to use notions of political practicality- what works best to keep the peace, whilst others might be complete anarchists. There is no consensus of belief in atheism. My guess is that a society which was entirely atheist would probably construct its laws in pretty much a similar way as your average Western society does now- through a mixture of general democratic moral consensus (for example there are few people of any religion or lack of who believe activities such as murder, rape or theft are acceptable- therefore it makes sense to have laws against them) and practicality (what actually works in terms of keeping society under control- e.g. it makes no sense to use the death penalty if statistics suggest that life imprisonment is a more effective preventative measure). What the actual laws themselves would be is difficult to define (although I'd hazard a guess they'd not differ too much from what we know now) but they would be decided through democratic decisions- the leaders who represented the views of the majority would be voted in and make the laws that represented those views- so essentially what we have now in the UK. The moral standards which atheists differ from the religious on tend to be personal decision issues such as pre-marital sex and homosexuality, rather than those which affect others such as murder or rape- a generalisation of course, but I suppose its the kind of question where generalisations are partially necessary. I recently came across this essay/ rant: http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/rants/mortality.html whilst very informal and "ranty" it makes some good points. Do religious people really think that atheists hear about murders, terrorism and rape on the news and think its all OK because it doesn't mean anything anyway? An atheist places importance squarly on the here and now- the motto of the British Humanist Society is "For The One Life We Have.". Just because someone doesn't believe in the great hereafter doesn't mena they have no interest in working (and often working damn hard) to make the world a better place for its own sake. EDIT: Worm- thanks for taking the time to read this, many religious types are uninterested even in listening to the views of the non-religious. Being a vegetarian I tend to see the parallels between the way a meat eater, tucking into a huge big mac and fries will inform a vegetarian that they can't possibly be healthy without eating meat.

A world without religion, is a world destined for gloom. morality and law would be non-existent. only the strong, ciminally-minded would survive. crime would be rampant. rape, arson, homocides, and robberies would be commonplace. The planet is run on religion, something that humans believe in. a higher authority is the glue that holds us together. Without laws, without a base-line belief in personal morales, society would never be as we know it today. God made planet earth, God made humans, and God will always be there to forgive us of our sins and to watchdog the morales and laws of human beings. God made the stage. it's up to us play out the parts. john

Your question seems to assume that morality or law is impossible to determine without basing your determination on some theology. This is a fallacious assumption. Our values and mores tend to come from the society around us. Even the "Godless Communism" of the USSR had morality and laws. The check on the balance of power (for those in power) that has always existed is civil revolt. Leaders are generally chosen, or rise from within, the society in question; therefore, their values and mores do not differ that much from the society. You can determine your laws from observing natural cause and effect. Action and reaction. Outlawing theft makes economic sense, as the motivation to produce in a capitalist society is driven by the accumulation of weath. Anyone can see the difference in economics of high crime versus low crime areas. Our love, affection, and sense of community around us leads us to value the life and welfare of those around us. We can value and respect the environment around us because of the ramifications of not doing it. In other words, religion is not a necessary condition for ethics, morality, or law.

I am going to introduce you to a new word actually Id like to scream it in your ear, Are you ready, sit down it may shock you. Here goes---ETHICS. Its a shocker but trust me you will get use to it. See there really is a proper way to act without religion.

I would imagine that rules would be based on the cultures growth. natural selection wouldn't allow for a culture to exist if everyone was murdering raping and stealing because everyone would be dead and would likely run away from this culture. mortality and law would still be there because it would prove the best way to handle a society.

If one of your hidden hypotheses is that morals must come from religion, then the obvious answser is that there can be no morals without religion. Now go look up "circular logic" in the dictionary.

Morality is an inborn human attribute! The basis thereof is embedded in our DNA. This “goodness” is not the gift of a deity. The standards of conduct, which humankind accepts as right and proper, flows naturally from the essence of our being. We, humans, have a natural tendency to “love one another” This natural ability therefore allows for morality to evolve as we grow spiritually.

Probably the same way it does now. Being an Atheist does not change one's view on morality or law, the only difference in an Atheist and a Christian (or other religion) is simply their belief in God..or lack thereof. (I have seen and heard plenty of so called Christians who were immoral and/or criminals). Morality and law is , more or less, based upon what is and is not socially acceptable to society as a whole by society. An individual's view on morality and law may differ but society's view usually holds.

1) I think it is about impossible to imagine a society without ANY kind of religion. Even the ants and the bees must have a rudimentary form of religion. 2) I you define religion as a system of arbitrary beliefs, a smart society would not use arbitrary beliefs to determine morality or law, but common sense, science and wisdom. An undeveloped society could also use force or terror. 3) it depends on what they believe: man, nature, money, science. They would probably base their morality or law on their beliefs. 4) but some people could say that if they believe in man, nature, money or science this would be their god, so they would not be atheists. 5) if an atheist is against theism, they would try to suppress any arbitrary influence of theism in their laws 6) if an atheist were someone whe believed that absolutely nothing had any importance at all, he would not have a need for established morality or law. But this is a very rare category of atheists.

I assume this means a purely secular society? In exactly the same way we do now. None of our morality comes from religion rather religion steals popular moral philosophy as a great selling point. Or it is used to codify existing moral philosophy. A good example is that we cherry pick the Bible for our moral guidance. We all think "thou shalt not murder" is a nice one but gloss over the stoning to death of women found to have had sex before marriage. Therefore we are actually using a different moral arbiter and when the religion is in harmony with this other moral code we attribute it to the religion. But this is looking at matters the wrong way around. So: exactly the same as we do now.

common sense.

The same way we do now. It's not necessary to have a religion to treat others with kindness and respect.

Humans have a basic need to be happy, regardless of religion. Obviously living in a society where people aren't getting raped and murdered will fulfill that need, religion aside.

I may be wrong, but I think the reason people choose to pretend to be atheists is that they don't want morality or law.

In Russia where I live there was pure atheism. The end of the UUSSR is well known.

Men would be as gods, attempting to determine their own form of morality and law. Although atheists believe there is no God or gods.

Empathy for one. Atheism is just a disbelief in gods, you know. Morality and law are NOT in its jurisdiction.

Atheists insist in their literature and web sites that they are moral people and that human beings do not need a god to be moral. Though they and others can choose to be relatively decent people, they are far and distant from the quality of morality fulfilled by "true" Christians. The key word in the above question is, “moral.” What is morality? Various sources define it differently. This should not surprise us. Without a God-given moral code, all humans have the right to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and if they, like the arch-atheist Nietzsche, want to propose that “good is evil and evil is good,” who is to say otherwise? Are there decent people among atheists? Are there atheists who are kind and honest and respectful of others? Most probably. Are they “always” kind, honest and respectful? Probably not. If they choose to cheat on their “self-chosen” ethics who will know? Who will they answer to, when they “deviate”? If they want to rationalize their unethical actions (and the mind is an expert at this, as Freud taught us) who will be there to present to them the opposite viewpoint? For "totally committed” Christians, deviating from God’s will is unacceptable. If and when a deviation takes place because of weakness, their conscience will create “agonizing” guilt, which is often followed by repentance and a return to the straight path. If an atheist commits adultery, for instance, how much guilt will he or she feel afterward? How many rationalizations can one come up with to commit adultery? Quite a few. If atheists choose to cheat on their income taxes, rationalizing that the government is stealing from them, will they feel guilt? Atheists can choose to be decent people and may succeed in doing so to a significant extent, but they have human nature fighting against that choice. Carnal, selfish human nature is at work in them as well as in religious people. Carnal human nature will tempt them as well as it tempts sincere Christians. True Christians have to create titanic mental distortions to escape their conscience's accusations -- atheists don’t. Atheists may actually choose to continue in their actions and not necessarily feel guilty, because they decide what is right or wrong and they can rationalize their actions ad nauseam and their minds may go perfectly along. Thus, atheists can be “relatively" moral, but only God knows if and when they choose to deviate from their “flexible” morality. Do they deviate? I have no doubt that they do. And when they do, no one will be there to castigate them, and thus it will be easier for them to deviate next time around. So because an atheist has no central source for their moral behavior, atheism chooses their own morality. A morality that fits their own lifestyle. I suppose that an atheist could try to extract a moral code from society in general but is society in general really a good place to get ones morals from?

Morality would be a matter of opinion. Nothing would be considered absolutely immoral.

The concept of morality would not exist, but things like murder and theft would still be against the law. The words "moral" and "immoral" would not exist.

You do not need to have religion to be moral. Such things as a social contract, legal precedent, and application of principles such as freedom, equality, and individualism can be applied without reference with a proposed moral authority.

Flip a coin.

The same way it always has - by determining what most people believe is for the common good while upholding rights most people agree an individual has.

Do you REALLY need a two thousand year old book to tell you that murder is wrong?

The same way it does now.

Secular socieies across the globe do it all the time. Our consciences and common sense tell the lawmakers what is right and wrong. Same with the bible writers (sometimes). That's why biblical laws and secular laws are sometimes very similar. But religious people like to claim that laws against murder wouldn't exist without the bible to tell us it's wrong. Duh. Unfortunatey biblical authors weren't always very ethical people, and that's where we get anti-homosexuality laws and pro slavery laws and many other awful things. The biblical writers were less moral than the average person today. They advocated killing children for talking back to their parents! Killing people for working on the sabbath! Unfortunately, those long dead evil men are influencing people's morality today by the milions.

A belief (or lack thereof) in gods has nothing to do with values or morals. It's like asking "In pure Libertinism how to they determine the best rout to Time Square?"