If God doesn't exist, is there any point in being a good person?

[Nooj]

Because a being who chooses the good on his own must be greater than one who really has no choice because he’s been created to choose one way only.

And that justifies the damnation of millions, if not billions for the sake of this stupid concept of freedom? Besides what sort of freedom do we have when we’re all tainted with original sin. It’s not as if we have any freedom in the first place, it’s God’s grace that moves us to salvation, not our individual effort.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

That’s something else I don’t understand. Why would the lack of the existence of a deity lead to an adoption of nihilism? Do you have any beliefs about why there exists people that lack a belief in deities not adopting nihilism?

For me, without an objective truth, any moral stance is purely subjective and, ulitmately, a human contrivance. Personally, I would be obligated to follow actions and conduct myself in a way that would serve my best interests (short term and long term), regardless of a defined “moral” position.

 

[Spock]

The former group just reasoned it out better and were more fully committed to the belief. The later group was probably less able to let go of the cultural learning which tells them those acts are wrong.

Please explain. To me it sounds that according to your opinion the “really committed” Christians are only held back from being psychopaths and sociopaths by their “committed belief”. Is that what you meant to say?

 

[fhansen]

And that justifies the damnation of millions, if not billions for the sake of this stupid concept of freedom? Besides what sort of freedom do we have when we’re all tainted with original sin. It’s not as if we have any freedom in the first place, it’s God’s grace that moves us to salvation, not our individual effort.

No-it’s both God and us,in Catholic theology at least; our wills are always involved. And we’re not so tainted that we can’t be persuaded to do right rather than wrong-or else the concept of any human moral responsibility whatsoever would have to be thrown out. We’re simply exhorted to be even more right than how we’re born-our unrighteousness said to consist in rejecting the righteousness of God in favor of our own, to put it one way. So, yes, we’re to choose, to choose good over evil, life over death, God over no God-and God promises to help us make the choice so long as we cooperate to some degree by responding with the even smallest amount of humility when he calls.

Billions in hell? I have no idea about this-I only know He promises perfect justice-actually that his love and mercy trumps his justice according to Catholic teaching-and that “All shall be well in the end”, also according to Catholic teaching, quoting a certain mystic. So we don’t know much about hell-only that its for those who prefer existence sans God, which is like preferring cold selfish lovelessness above all else.

People sometimes are repelled by the idea of having to make a choice, but the choice is really only to align ourselves with that which is truly right anyway. And we don’t even know when that opportunity is given-how much time and mercy is ultimately allowed, for example. Only God needn’t make a choice because only Gods’ will is inherently perfect. Our wills may be inherently imperfect by virtue of being created rather than being the creator-by virtue of not being God-but that doesn’t mean freedom is bad-it’s something we generally cherish in fact. It gives us the ability to shake our fists at God, for one thing.

But maybe the real take home message is this. This world is a place where God uses time and our experience and revelation/grace to learn to recognize the perfection of His will so that we may come to willingly align ourselves with it.
At some point evil will no longer be allowed to coexist with good- genocide and torture will no longer exist, order is restored, as creation comes into this alignment. But we don’t want to be forced anyway, do we?

 

[Spock]

A creator could easily value a created beings’ choosing the right thing.

Yes, the creator “could”, but why “would” he? Makes no sense at all. It is obvious that the creator (if that creator is a rational, purposeful being, which should be assumed) has a goal in mind. Anything that leads toward that goal is “valued” - so far we agree. But everything that leads against that goal cannot be valued, since that goes against rationality.

But this unavoidably implies that the created being could choose the wrong thing.

Yes, and why it that valued? That is the question. What does the “freedom” add to the result?

So, the creator values our freedom, even knowing that we may act outside his will.

That is the question again. Why is that “lucky break” valued?

And free will simply can’t exist any other way, BTW; either a creator gives beings the freedom to act outside his will or they have no free will at all. He doesn’t will them to act outside his will-he wills them to be free, even if that means acting outside his will.

So, why should any reasonable, purposeful creator give such a freedom? What does he “gain” by it, even if all the creatures always act “rightly”? Observe, if all the creatures always act “rightly”, the end result is the same as if the creatures would have no freedom at all. If just one creature acts incorrectly in just one instance, the result is not what the creator intended. So the outcome cannot be better, but it can be worse - and most probably will be worse. That is not how a rational creator would act.

Anyway, I know that my own child has reached a level of maturity when they do the right thing on their own instead of because I’ve mandated it. This is really pretty basic stuff, IMO.

Not at all. That is the fundamental question. What is the difference?

To help you, here is a real-world scenario. Take a mine-field, which must be crossed by people. There are two ways to find the path. One is to get a bunch of volunteers, who will try to find the path, and if they make a mistake, they will die. When the first one dies, a new one is sent out. Of course the volunteers must be given the freedom to reject this role. The other is to build a robotic “dog”, which will perform the same task. When it is blown up, usually it can be repaired, but not always. If it cannot be repaired, a new dog is sent out. At the end of the day, you have a safe crossing across the minefield.

Which is your preferred way of finding it? Using the volunteers or the robots? Why?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

For me, without an objective truth, any moral stance is purely subjective and, ulitmately, a human contrivance. Personally, I would be obligated to follow actions and conduct myself in a way that would serve my best interests (short term and long term), regardless of a defined “moral” position.

My interpretation of the first sentence is significance of moral behaviour is dependent on a deity to give that behaviour significance. My interpretation of the second sentence is that without the guidance of that deity your strongest decision driver is to do what is self serving. Let me know if I have misinterpreted either.

I understand why considering your long term and short term interest would be an influencing factor on your decisions. (Should I change “would be” to “is”? I am sure it is an influencing factors now). But do you think those would be the only things that motivate your behaviour? Would it also make you immune to being influenced by sympathy and empathy or caring for some one? Are you confident that you would be obligated to make decisions based your personal best interest, or do you think you would become incapable of making self sacrifices for the sake of another’s well being? If you ever make decisions now that are to be to some one else’s advantage is it only because of the commands of that deity.

When I was a member of a church and a Christian I remember having been taught that those with know belief in a deity were self serving. But living and working in a community of people with various beliefs (polytheistic, monotheist, deistic, agnostic, atheistic) I haven’t found evidence to show that to be the case; I can find people that emphasize being self serving or altruistic that hold the one of the theistic or non theistic positions.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

My interpretation of the first sentence is significance of moral behaviour is dependent on a deity to give that behaviour significance. My interpretation of the second sentence is that without the guidance of that deity your strongest decision driver is to do what is self serving. Let me know if I have misinterpreted either.

I understand why considering your long term and short term interest would be an influencing factor on your decisions. (Should I change “would be” to “is”? I am sure it is an influencing factors now). But do you think those would be the only things that motivate your behaviour? Would it also make you immune to being influenced by sympathy and empathy or caring for some one? Are you confident that you would be obligated to make decisions based your personal best interest, or do you think you would become incapable of making self sacrifices for the sake of another’s well being? If you ever make decisions now that are to be to some one else’s advantage is it only because of the commands of that deity.

When I was a member of a church and a Christian I remember having been taught that those with know belief in a deity were self serving. But living and working in a community of people with various beliefs (polytheistic, monotheist, deistic, agnostic, atheistic) I haven’t found evidence to show that to be the case; I can find people that emphasize being self serving or altruistic that hold the one of the theistic or non theistic positions.

I’m uncertain that your anecdotal observation would be a reliable indicator of human behavior. I would hazard a guess that much of today’s “altruism” in the world is influenced by Western Judeo-Christian tenets, politics and ideologies or operant conditioning due to environment and not due to human material nature. A full stomach, relative safety and decent standard of living can allow for such amenity.

As for my belief in a supreme being (a necessary and essential entity), it would serve to philosophically justify standards of behavior, not from just explicit commands or natural law but from metaphysical values derived from the ontological requirements of such an entity. Furthermore, it would render to my mind that living existence as purposeful and demonstrate an immaterial element to reality.

The lack of a supreme being would render the aforementioned moot and validate a purely materialist existence. Sentiments such as compassion or empathy would be conjectured as illusionary, being mere chemical interaction of a material brain. Without need to consider or employ morals standards, focus on serving one’s best interests in a purely material existence would be the only logical recourse.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m uncertain that your anecdotal observation would be a reliable indicator of human behavior.

I’d say that these observations alone are insufficient for reliable predicting human behaviour. But I’ve not been able to reconcile my observations against things that I’ve been taught and hear repeated about others that don’t hold beleifs in any deities (and those that are said to hold beliefs in the wrong deity). There is some inconsistency and the observations.

I would hazard a guess that much of today’s “altruism” in the world is influenced by Western Judeo-Christian tenets, politics and ideologies or operant conditioning due to environment and not due to human material nature. A full stomach, relative safety and decent standard of living can allow for such amenity.

I’m glad to say that I’ve not yet been in an environment in which competition for resources needed to live has been critical. It’s an experience I hope to never have.

As for my belief in a supreme being (a necessary and essential entity)…

Thanks for elaborating.

The lack of a supreme being would render the aforementioned moot and validate a purely materialist existence. Sentiments such as compassion or empathy would be conjectured as illusionary, being mere chemical interaction of a material brain…

With respect to compassion and empathy, even if they were thought to be illusionary I still wonder if that thought would make one’s behaviour immune to them. If one is not completely immune to them then they could contribute something that would motivate “good” behaviours and have relevance to the original question.

I gather from your statement that a supreme being gives your existence purpose that the sense of purpose also gives you some satisfaction (and I only gather this because I frequently see comments on self purpose being paired with expressions of satisfaction).

This also connects back to the question that I had asked christosdavid about “Why would the lack of the existence of a deity lead to an adoption of nihilism?” and something I heard some one else ask the other day that was worded with something like “How can we have cosmic significance without God?” In message 99 in this thread some one said " I would say anyone without the one True God is an animal. " It sounds like you are all expressing different facets of the same thing. And it is something to which I have a difficult time relating.

I’m trying to relate this back to something to which I am familiar even though this may be an imperfect representation. Of the concepts of Christian concepts of God with which I’ve been familiarized the one that I find best assist me in trying to interpret what is being expressed here is the one in which God is viewed as having a relationship with a follower that comes closest to the parent in a child-parent relationship in human relationships. With that concept in mind I can’t help but relate what you, christosdavid, and others have said to being similar to “what is the use acting a certain way if there is no parent that will be pleased by what I am doing?” When I try to interpret the phrase “it would serve to philosophically justify standards of behavior” with this relationship in mind I interpret it as “there exists some things on which we may never agree. Since we may never agree on these things let’s let the parent decide these things.”

Does this interpretation come to being anywhere close to what you are expressing? If not then where does it deviate from matching?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

a theist

**Lastly, I’d just like to note that your question “If god doesn’t exist, is there any point in being a good person?” supposes that it is in fact possible to be a good person without god, however pointless you may feel it to be. If it weren’t, your question would merely be stated as " Can you be a good person without god?"

which incidentally, carries a resouding yes as an answer. **

A resounding yes can also be given to the question: Can a person be evil without God?

Ask the atheist Maquis de Sade who exulted in being evil.

No Christian can behave as the Maquis de Sade and still be taken seriously as a Christian.

 

[exnihilo]

Please explain. To me it sounds that according to your opinion the “really committed” Christians are only held back from being psychopaths and sociopaths by their “committed belief”. Is that what you meant to say?

First lets clarify some things. This was some of the group, but not all. We have to assume that the people properly understood the question to mean what would they do if God truly did not exist and they knew that.

The group who would do things that are normally wrong reasoned through it better. If they knew with absolutely certainty there was no God then they would know there is no punishment, beyond this world, for bad acts. They fully accepted the belief. Fully accepting that belief it makes perfect sense to pursue what is pleasurable in this world since that is all there is to existence.

The other group, who would continue to act morally, could not let go of the idea that there is right and wrong. But in the absence of God I dont think it likely there is true morality. Influence by culture and upbringing they weren’t able to fully entertain this hypothetical. I dont find this hard to understand because there really is morality and there really is God. It is hard for a person who accepts this to fully rid their mind of these truths. But given enough time and the influence of others who fully accepted this hypothetical truth I the number of people in the group who would continue to act morally would decline.

 

[exnihilo]

When I was a member of a church and a Christian I remember having been taught that those with know belief in a deity were self serving. But living and working in a community of people with various beliefs (polytheistic, monotheist, deistic, agnostic, atheistic) I haven’t found evidence to show that to be the case; I can find people that emphasize being self serving or altruistic that hold the one of the theistic or non theistic positions.

If God exists and morality exists and God has in some way made morality known to man then this is not surprising. In fact standard Christian theology would say that man has an awareness of God and His moral laws apart from religious teaching.

One problem is that some sinners are going to seek out religions because it can be a good way to manipulate people as a wolf among sheep. And naturally good people might find that religion has no value for them because they find themselves to be pretty good without it. This is pride in a Christian worldview and a sin. But with these two factors you’ll find church people not acting as good as they should and non-church people not acting as bad as they should.

I’d also point out for consideration that what we now consider the realm of morality is mostly just not depriving someone else of their ‘rights’. There is charity, which in most Christian nations is now enforced by the state. I’d say anything that must be mandated by law indicates a lack of willingness to do so without coercion. If our charity is due to the tax power of the state how can we say we are actually charitable? But what is mostly ignored, even in Christianity, is moral duties where we personally are the sole beneficiary. This would be temperance or sexual morality. There is not much instruction regarding this aspect of morality.

 

[Spock]

First lets clarify some things. This was some of the group, but not all. We have to assume that the people properly understood the question to mean what would they do if God truly did not exist and they knew that.

Yes, we can assume that. Indeed it was just a minority of the believers.

The group who would do things that are normally wrong reasoned through it better. If they knew with absolutely certainty there was no God then they would know there is no punishment, beyond this world, for bad acts. They fully accepted the belief. Fully accepting that belief it makes perfect sense to pursue what is pleasurable in this world since that is all there is to existence.

This is the pertinent part. How does the knowledge that God does not exist (and thus that there is no punishment in the hereafter) logically lead to “everything goes”? Strong atheists are certain that the Christian God cannot exist (because the definition is logically incoherent), and yet there is no epidemic “let’s kill, rape and torture” among them. Yes, even in the absence of “transcendent punishment” they accept that there is objective right and wrong, even if there is no absolute right and wrong. And for normal people the idea of “rape, kill and torture” is not a path to pleasure. Only mentally sick people find these activities “pleasurable”.

The other group, who would continue to act morally, could not let go of the idea that there is right and wrong. But in the absence of God I dont think it likely there is true morality.

Well, that is your opinion only. If you would consider that the average level of “good behavior” is pretty much the same among believers and atheists, then you really should abandon your opinion as unfounded.

Influence by culture and upbringing they weren’t able to fully entertain this hypothetical. I dont find this hard to understand because there really is morality and there really is God.

I am sure you realize that a proposition like this would gain a lot of weight if it could be proven. In the catechism there is one sentence stating that God’s existence can be known based upon fully rational arguments (without referring to faith) but that is just an empty proposition, without arguments.

It is hard for a person who accepts this to fully rid their mind of these truths. But given enough time and the influence of others who fully accepted this hypothetical truth I the number of people in the group who would continue to act morally would decline.

The relatively constant level of of “good behavior” between the believers and atheists definitely contradicts that expectation.

 

[fhansen]

Which is your preferred way of finding it? Using the volunteers or the robots? Why?

I’d use the robots of course because I value human life. But I have no idea what any of this might be analogous to.

 

[Spock]

I’d use the robots of course because I value human life. But I have no idea what any of this might be analogous to.

Did you consider that the people to clear the minefield are all volunteers? That they act on their volition? You do not force them in any way, merely ask for their help, and explain the consequences. The analogy explains that the result of the activity which matters, and the free will of the entities who perform the activity does not add anything valuable.

Let me show another example (not real world, a little sci-fi is mixed in). Suppose that a patient is in a hospital. The patient needs care. There are two nurses, one is a human and the other one is a “robot”. There is no difference between their knowledge and experience. Maybe they even look alike. Either one can perform the task equally well. Is there any “extra” stemming from the fact that the human nurse “could refuse” to deliver the care, while the “robotic” nurse cannot? If you were the patient, would you care? If you would be the supervisor to the nursing station, would you care?

We can go back to the original question. Why would a creator “value” a volitional adherence to its wishes (or desires)? What does the volitional aspect add to the result? The lack of volitional aspect adds something very valuable: certainty.

 

[Spock]

I’d use the robots of course because I value human life. But I have no idea what any of this might be analogous to.

Did you consider that the people to clear the minefield are all volunteers? That they act on their volition? You do not force them in any way, merely ask for their help, and explain the consequences. The analogy explains that the result of the activity which matters, and the free will of the entities who perform the activity does not add anything valuable.

Let me show another example (not real world, a little sci-fi is mixed in). Suppose that a patient is in a hospital. The patient needs care. There are two nurses, one is a human and the other one is a “robot”. There is no difference between their knowledge and experience. Maybe they even look alike. Either one can perform the task equally well. Is there any “extra” stemming from the fact that the human nurse “could refuse” to deliver the care, while the “robotic” nurse cannot? If you were the patient, would you care? If you would be the supervisor to the nursing station, would you care?

We can go back to the original question. Why would a creator “value” a volitional adherence to its wishes (or desires)? What does the volitional aspect add to the result? The lack of volitional aspect adds something very valuable: certainty. The creator does not need to chew its fingernails and ponder: will they act as I wish them to act, or will they not? And if the creator actually knows that the created ones will act contrary to what he desires, and still creates them… well in that case the creator is completely irrational.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And naturally good people might find that religion has no value for them because they find themselves to be pretty good without it. This is pride in a Christian worldview and a sin.

Why does deciding that a religion does not offer something of value to one’s self considered pride?

If our charity is due to the tax power of the state how can we say we are actually charitable?

From the public reaction I see every time there is a suggestion to raise taxes to assist the underprivileged I’d say your right. Though taxes don’t rob one of the ability to be charitable, nor is money the only thing that can be offered for charity (there’s also time and effort).

This would be temperance or sexual morality. There is not much instruction regarding this aspect of morality.

No, there’s not. And sexual morality if fertile ground for disagreement.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

With respect to compassion and empathy, even if they were thought to be illusionary I still wonder if that thought would make one’s behaviour immune to them. If one is not completely immune to them then they could contribute something that would motivate “good” behaviours and have relevance to the original question.

Good is a value judgment and subject to interpretation. As such, there can be no objective good or bad. Consequently, all actions are equality valid in terms of significance so to label something as “good” is utterly meaningless. The prime motivator of animate matter would be to operate in it’s best interests and nothing more. That doesn’t exclude “good” behaviours but neither does it necessarily promote them. Compassion and empathy would on be useful if it served one’s interest. If they do not, they will be discarded.

I gather from your statement that a supreme being gives your existence purpose that the sense of purpose also gives you some satisfaction (and I only gather this because I frequently see comments on self purpose being paired with expressions of satisfaction).

A supreme entity would demonstrate an ultimate truth. From that we can derive meaning which lead to satisfactory human expressions.

This also connects back to the question that I had asked christosdavid about “Why would the lack of the existence of a deity lead to an adoption of nihilism?” and something I heard some one else ask the other day that was worded with something like “How can we have cosmic significance without God?” In message 99 in this thread some one said " I would say anyone without the one True God is an animal. " It sounds like you are all expressing different facets of the same thing. And it is something to which I have a difficult time relating.

That’s because you are an inheritor of an environment that operates under an absolute value system, from which people can adopt beneficial patterns of behaviour. The true test of value integrity is made under a stressful living conditions. Generosity stems from having more than what one requires in terms of material needs. Having your material wants reasonably satisfied permits such an indulgence.

…“what is the use acting a certain way if there is no parent that will be pleased by what I am doing?” When I try to interpret the phrase “it would serve to philosophically justify standards of behavior” with this relationship in mind I interpret it as “there exists some things on which we may never agree. Since we may never agree on these things let’s let the parent decide these things.”

Does this interpretation come to being anywhere close to what you are expressing? If not then where does it deviate from matching?

That’s a condensed way of evaluating the issue but at its core there is merit. However, my own abridged view it that humans are wired to operate in their interests and if one behaves in a manner that would not be discordant with a supreme entities motives, it would serve to promote a sense of serving one’s interests.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Did you consider that the people to clear the minefield are all volunteers? That they act on their volition? You do not force them in any way, merely ask for their help, and explain the consequences. The analogy explains that the result of the activity which matters, and the free will of the entities who perform the activity does not add anything valuable.

Let me show another example (not real world, a little sci-fi is mixed in). Suppose that a patient is in a hospital. The patient needs care. There are two nurses, one is a human and the other one is a “robot”. There is no difference between their knowledge and experience. Maybe they even look alike. Either one can perform the task equally well. Is there any “extra” stemming from the fact that the human nurse “could refuse” to deliver the care, while the “robotic” nurse cannot? If you were the patient, would you care? If you would be the supervisor to the nursing station, would you care?

We can go back to the original question. Why would a creator “value” a volitional adherence to its wishes (or desires)? What does the volitional aspect add to the result? The lack of volitional aspect adds something very valuable: certainty. The creator does not need to chew its fingernails and ponder: will they act as I wish them to act, or will they not? And if the creator actually knows that the created ones will act contrary to what he desires, and still creates them… well in that case the creator is completely irrational.

This argument has never worked worked for you. By definition, G-d, is never uncertain, and he can always tell the difference between real X and fake X even if they are identical in every other way but the volitional act.

 

[Nooj]

No-it’s both God and us,in Catholic theology at least; our wills are always involved. And we’re not so tainted that we can’t be persuaded to do right rather than wrong-or else the concept of any human moral responsibility whatsoever would have to be thrown out. We’re simply exhorted to be even more right than how we’re born-our unrighteousness said to consist in rejecting the righteousness of God in favor of our own, to put it one way. So, yes, we’re to choose, to choose good over evil, life over death, God over no God-and God promises to help us make the choice so long as we cooperate to some degree by responding with the even smallest amount of humility when he calls.

Lets grant that we are the ones who choose. But why and how do we choose? The issue seems to be quite complex. You say when we cooperate, God helps us make the choice. Well why do we cooperate? Because God gives us sufficient grace, in order that we have the ability to make that choice. And why do we make the right choice in particular? Efficacious grace. All from God. If God wills the salvation for all, I don’t know why he doesn’t send efficacious grace to everyone.

But complex theological questions aside, the very fact that we are tainted and have a natural predisposition towards evil should be evidence enough that we are not totally free. The odds are unfairly stacked against us from the start when our nature tends towards sin. Why couldn’t God have made it the other way around, so that we tend to choose the good? Instead of original sin, it would be original holiness. If original sin doesn’t destroy our free will, original holiness shouldn’t destroy it either.

We can’t be trusted with free will, we should never have been given it. I firmly believe that, since the consequences are so steep.

Billions in hell? I have no idea about this-I only know He promises perfect justice-actually that his love and mercy trumps his justice according to Catholic teaching-and that “All shall be well in the end”, also according to Catholic teaching, quoting a certain mystic. So we don’t know much about hell-only that its for those who prefer existence sans God, which is like preferring cold selfish lovelessness above all else.

I’m only going by Jesus’ words. The way is narrow and only a few find it.

People sometimes are repelled by the idea of having to make a choice, but the choice is really only to align ourselves with that which is truly right anyway. And we don’t even know when that opportunity is given-how much time and mercy is ultimately allowed, for example. Only God needn’t make a choice because only Gods’ will is inherently perfect. Our wills may be inherently imperfect by virtue of being created rather than being the creator-by virtue of not being God-but that doesn’t mean freedom is bad-it’s something we generally cherish in fact. It gives us the ability to shake our fists at God, for one thing.

But maybe the real take home message is this. This world is a place where God uses time and our experience and revelation/grace to learn to recognize the perfection of His will so that we may come to willingly align ourselves with it.
At some point evil will no longer be allowed to coexist with good- genocide and torture will no longer exist, order is restored, as creation comes into this alignment. But we don’t want to be forced anyway, do we?

The idea that evil exists at all rankles. The idea of even one child suffering due to bad parents for the sake of a final good is not a pleasant one. I’m not going to argue with the idea that someday, somehow, it will all be made okay. And that all this pain and misery was worth it and the damnation of however many people makes perfect sense. I doubt it, but I doubt a lot of things. What I know for certain though is that I can’t sit here and be content or happy about it. I’m going to shake my fist at God for now and if he exists, he can correct me when I’m dead.

 

[exnihilo]

This is the pertinent part. How does the knowledge that God does not exist (and thus that there is no punishment in the hereafter) logically lead to “everything goes”? Strong atheists are certain that the Christian God cannot exist (because the definition is logically incoherent), and yet there is no epidemic “let’s kill, rape and torture” among them. Yes, even in the absence of “transcendent punishment” they accept that there is objective right and wrong, even if there is no absolute right and wrong. And for normal people the idea of “rape, kill and torture” is not a path to pleasure. Only mentally sick people find these activities “pleasurable”.

I think there really is objective morality so strong atheists who act morally are conforming to reality. However, I think if they logically followed through with their belief in lack of punishment then they would not be inhibited from doing evil. Since objective morality and the human conscience do exist it is not surprising that they will often live morally. But these things point to God since these things cant be products of a purely material world.

I am sure you realize that a proposition like this would gain a lot of weight if it could be proven. In the catechism there is one sentence stating that God’s existence can be known based upon fully rational arguments (without referring to faith) but that is just an empty proposition, without arguments.

There are many arguments, thoroughly explained, that demonstrate how to get to God from the world we experience using our reason.

The relatively constant level of of “good behavior” between the believers and atheists definitely contradicts that expectation.

I think this is hard to measure. But if we said the acts of the Soviet Empire are due to their espoused atheism then it would be hard to make a claim that atheists tend to be just as good as theists.