China definitely has very serious problems and human rights abuses and especially before Deng Xiaoping was one of the worst governments in the world. However, its rise out of poverty over the last 40 years has been one of the great moral triumphs of our time. Also, you shouldn't ignore the other countries I listed.

Korea (which I assume refers to South Korea?) is actually the 12 highest country on this survey, with 55% being either atheistic or not religious, so that is not a very example for your case. I won't disagree with you about North Korea (which I assume can't be surveyed), but think that speaks more to the evilness of communism and the Kim regime rather than a religious difference. For instance, Japan, neither Christian nor particularly religious is a fairly close comp for South Korea.

I think of atheism as a negative claim, as rejecting various religious/philosophical ideas. Some of the ideologies that are then accepted by atheists are quite evil, and some of them are not. I don't see any particular advantage here vs theism.

I don't view the correct comparison here as between atheism and religion or atheism and Christianity, but as atheism vs theism. Some theistic political ideologies, such as Islamism, are quite bad. Some, such as liberalism, social democracy, republicanism, etc. are not. Some atheistic political ideologies, such as communism, are also quite bad. Some, such as liberalism, social democracy, republicanism, etc. are not.

So you're just special? Your comments make me curious how you even came to atheism, you describe it as if it's a starting point rather than a conclusion, that being an atheist would lead you to such things as being a materialist. It's bizarre.

Since my fingers started to get sore from all the typing, I'll just ask this for now:

What are you top 3 best representative 'atheist mores'?

Nobody did. He posted the data and said there were "some pretty good countries overall". As you wouldn't want to come across as biased, please feel free to post the most religious countries and defend their regimes.

There are oppressive regimes in religious and non religious countries. Oppression is the problem and the method used to justify it is pretty irrelevant, that's the point.

Not religious/not practicing is not the same as atheist. WTF? This data is worthless to this discussion.

My father hated all religion but believed in a God of some kind. So did our neighbor. This is extremely common among the irreligious of all ages. Many people follow no religion but think there's probably some kind of higher power.
Yup.

Ah, the old tactic of attacking the weak points to avoid providing the justification yourself.

I follow the facts where they lead. I don't barrack for my team just because I'm on it, like most people do. "Me atheist so atheist better than the other" is the position of 90+% of atheists. Or Anglicans. It's a weird quirk of human nature that goes back to our tribal days and is hilariously out of place in modern discourse and politics.
It's not bizarre at all, it's how the world works. Most people follow the religion (or not) of their parents and social group, and that includes atheists. Most people gain atheism by osmosis, not by thought.

Of course atheism implies materialism far more often. We're not robots. This non-cognitivist view that tame_deuces is putting forward is silly. "Atheism is just a lack of belief in a God". Well sure, if you're a robot. But people try to understand the world around them. If you're trying to understand the world within an atheists framework, you're far more likely to use materialist explanations for all kinds of things (since that's the only way to resolve many kinds of questions/mysteries). If you reject the notion of soul and universal morals, you more often reject certain types of human dignity. You see less problem with killing people. You're more likely to see people as tools and deify other philosophies, like Marxism.

We haven't seen the effect of this in the West because most countries are in an international norm of Christian values developed over centuries and turned into law. But whenever there's been an atheist revolution, it's led to horror. The three most evil and oppressive countries in the world - China under Mao, Russia under Lenin/Stalin, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge - were countries where atheism - the kind followed by the atheists here - was a deep part of the philosophy.
Pretty much answered above. They're not so much mores (just like there aren't really religious mores - I'm just using the words of the person I'm replying to), but more tendencies to think and believe certain things on certain topics.

I'm sure there's data, but I"m too lazy to find it. However:
2 out of 3 of these non-religious people believe in a God (i.e they are NOT atheists). Probably even more believe in a higher power or some kind or mystical moral order to the universe which is basically God but not described as such. Even of the < 30% left, many of these would be either agnostic or disinterested in such questions. The percentage of actual atheists in even the most irreligious societies is pretty low.

Like what?

Yes I really wish Christian values would keep us in check. Like the crusades, killing scientists for discovering the earth isn't the center of the universe or killing women on a massive scale for being witches.

Christ said: "love your enemies", "turn the other cheek", "don't forgive just seven times, but seventy-seven times!", "those who live by the sword perish by the sword".

Seems the crusaders didn't read very well...

Or you don't read very well. The crusades were the first non-defensive reaction to 400 years of Muslim war, barbarity, and pushing into Christian territories. Muslims violently took vast swathes of Chrstian lands and had well over half of Chrstian lands under their control by the time of the Crusades, with attendant shocking barbarity (large scale beheadings, kidnapping of vast hordes of children as young as 9 - many millions in total - for child sexual slavery, etc).

The crusades were a small scale, civilized push back against centuries of Muslim incursion and barbarity.

They did turn the other cheek, for a long time. But Christianity would have been extinguished entirely, and the whole world put under barbaric Islam, without a pushback. Christianity doesn't mean you must let bad people murder you.

I'm not a christian, but isn't the central event of the life of Jesus him allowing himself to be crucified by the "bad guys"?

Yes, but it's an act of humility toward humankind. Plus, he doesn't really die.

I don't think Christian theology ever involved being a pure pacifist. You can certainly interpret parts of what Jesus said that way. But Christianity would have ceased to exist on this Earth had Christians not resisted Muslim conquest and barbarity. For example, the Battle of Tours, which is perhaps the only reason women are not the totally controlled property of men today, and you don't pray to Mecca each morning.
I don't think there is any moral law, except maybe Buddhist ones, that forbids the defense of your women and children.

The crusades only start 250 years after this prolonged period of Muslim conquest, beheading, and mass kidnapping of children and young women to turn them into lifelong rape-slaves. And even then it was only an attempt to take back certain Christian lands that been overrun and treated brutally by their Muslim overlords.

You're going to be concerned with the life of 9 year old children when putting Christianity in a good light? Really?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but Christianity was a wonderful religion. Most of what you have that's good, including secularism and atheism, is due to the preaching of Christianity.

Can you answer this?

Some examples of questions where an atheist tends to answer very differently and thus have different consequences from their beliefs.

Do humans have a soul?

Is the source of morality divine/eternal or programmed into us imperfectly by physics and random chance and ultimately arbitrary and meaningless?

Do we have to answer for our actions in some way, or are we free to do what we like without consequence as long as we're clever enough or powerful enough? Is the only judgment we have to face what physics deals out, and what other humans are capable of enforcing on us?

Should psychology be viewed within the framework of a soul - as something with meaning and feeling and nuance and an eternal truth behind it - are we merely programmed products of evolutionary forces, and meant to be understood as such? I know all manner of men who justify cheating on the grounds that "it's just evolutionary psychology, I'm built this way". As if your baser nature/lust is sufficient explanation for actions which hurt another.

Do we owe allegiance to what's eternally right and true and moral and compassionate, or should our focus be on hedonism and how we feel, since we're not going to live forever, no one is judging our private acts, and it's ultimately all meaningless?

The truth is that we still have the long ranging effects of Christian influences on morality and law in most of our societies. Societies have not yet had a chance to remake themselves as a logical consequence of atheist thought, free from the influence of Christianity and Christian morality. There have been no major wars or revolutions in the West since the time when Christianity defined everything. In the countries where there have been revolutions, and atheism was allowed to overturn existing Christian morals and ideals and laws, horror and oppression followed.

This may be difficult to consider for some, but Christ is not about nations and races or tribes but about the individual man. Each of us lives within our particular moral tone whereas there is no moral construct for a nation or race or tribe when Christ is considered.

The Decalogue speaks to the individual even within the ethos of the Hebrew Nation. Individuals, not nations, are counseled to "not kill", not "commit adultery " ," not to hold false gods",.....

This doesn't imply that peoples, acting in community , are counseled to have full reign because, of course, the nations are made of individuals. It is a paradox, not a contradiction as the antipathetic would assume.

It is no more than a revisionist "group speak" when the Crusades are presented in this light as compared to Mao, Hitler, Stalin and Pho Pot . Its "lawyer speak' as evidenced by our previous president who cajoled against the Christian clergymen at a luncheon with religious leaders.

By the way, tooth, thanx for your response; I tire of hearing this tripe of a comparison through the mouths of the unknowing and unseeing, and of course uncaring.

Those are all very loaded questions. You clearly have an idea of how an atheist thinks that doesn't apply to all atheists. Or you're choosing to have that idea as it suits your point.

You asked me for examples where atheism has a more materialist view of the topic, and that answer is worse from a personal or social standpoint. I provided those examples. Now I'm cherry picking apparently.

I'm surprised this is even debatable. Atheists on average take more materialist views on many topics, including on topics where it's harmful to psychology or social cohesion or individual human rights to do so. How could they not? When seeking to understand the world, you take what is available, and if there is no grandpops in the sky who did it all, materialism is the next best and easiest thing.

This is all your pre-supposed view of atheism and how people view it, despite everyone else in the thread disputing it (we all just see ourselves as superior though and are in denial apparently).

You don't have to believe someone has a soul to have empathy.

Who is more moral? The guy who doesn't harm his neighbors because he will be punished for it in the afterlife or the guy who doesn't harm his neighbor despite the fact that he can kill people, commit suicide and never ever feel the consequences of his acts again?

I agree atheists have a more materialistic/earthly view on things since the supernatural causes are clearly not a consideration (actually they are but easily dismissed). How this instantly leads to genocides and oppression is beyond ridiculous.

Well maybe it's the Christian tradition that forces people into positions like these. If the institution of marriage was not so widespread and expected of people they wouldn't feel the need to twist themselves into justifying things they feel like doing. A man can't cheat if he isn't committed to a woman now can he. People start nagging "so aren't you thinking about marriage....HINT" when you're a couple. I have seen many faked relationships to keep parents and/or family happy. If they could just be honest and make their intent clear you wouldn't know the concept of cheating.

Can't say I agree with this part. Why do you see marriage as a religious thing? And it appears you think cheating is only wrong if it happens in marriage?

He's an atheist, obviously. We're "biologically evolved' to not be monogamous in the worldview of many atheists. So why pair bond and be miserable and have fidelity? It goes against our very nature, in the atheist worldview.

What you're witnessing is the beginning of atheist philosophy unraveling the societal bonds that religion created over countless generations. We're at an early stage of this happening so the "evil inherent in this dissolution" (to quote Bertrand Russell) hasn't flowered yet. There's a lot more to come yet. We're still under the protection of the wonderful things religion and Christianity have done in creating stable and altruistic and caring societies.

It's a religious tradition that has been included in our society. You don't think it's by accident you can marry in a church right?

Also I did not say cheating is only wrong in marriage. What I said is that the expectancy of marriage is going to put certain people in a position where they are going to do something fcked up. Obviously if you're in a relationship and have no plans of getting married cheating is still inexcusable. The thing is some people just aren't made for relationships or marriage and at least you can break up a relationship without consequences.