---Crime requires no dogma for its commission.
No, crime doesn’t, but you weren’t talking about simple crime. You were talking about the motivations for crime. As I explained, I don’t even think “belief in God” can create motivation for crime, in and of itself. There has to be something more attached to that belief. Do you disagree with this? You can’t just have belief in God as a motivation for anything. You have to believe SOMETHING about what that God is like, or wants from you. These attached beliefs are what can provide motivations for crime or benevolent acts of charity.
The same is true of atheism. Simply the lack of belief in God cannot create motivation for crime, in and of itself. There has to be something more attached to that belief. We’ve been referring to that “something more” as some sort of dogma, but I don’t care what term you use for it, as long as we understand what we’re referring to.
---Did you read that chain of syllogisms I posted above? Did you see what I meant?
Yes, I did. If you think I am disagreeing with you, our communications are failing. I think I expressed pretty explicit agreement with this, in particular:
Beastie’s previous post:
I will state one more time that I do not believe religion is the problem, but rather it is just one mechanism that demonstrates the problems inherent in being a human being. I believe that the religion is just one more form of tribe, and that tribalism, while it also has positive benefits, also is what leads us to dehumanize and attack others. I do not believe that either theists or atheists are morally superior to one another, and given the opportunity, each will act with a fairly equal amount of self-interest and damage to others. I totally agree with Tal that if all religion were eradicated today, by next week new religions would replace them. But I also object to terms such as “atheist agenda” and statements which sound as if the majority of atheists believe X, Y, or Z, or are bound together by anything other than lack of belief in god.
---You are right, Beastie, but I don't think things are that simple at all; and I don't see how that point in itself provides any support for attributing a superior morality, or more safety, to atheism per se. A belief or disbelief in God can occur at a variety of points in a "chain of reasoning"...and I don't see how it one way or the other, in itself, influences the conclusion. Like I said above, another way of putting this is that if we only knew that a particular action was motivated, at some point, by either theism or atheism, that knowledge alone wouldn't help us at all to predict whether the act committed was good or evil, would it? How would you respond to that point?
Tal, I have not attributed moral superiority or more safety to atheism at all. You are not reading my posts carefully if you think I have, or perhaps I am not expressing myself well.