Yeah but they don't do it in the name of atheism, do they? And don't try to change the subject to individual nutcases, nobody said there aren't atheists who kill other people.

To the point, are you saying someone needs religion to have morality or not?

So... people who self identify with some kind of religion don't have abortions?

After reading this thread I get the impression that some people might think it is unnecessary to teach children that lying, cheating, stealing, harming others, disrespecting parents, dishonesty, and adultery are wrong. Some people seem to think that these morals will simply arise naturally in people from DNA, genetic empathy, or from simple reasoning, or that all morality is relative anyway so why bother?. I do not agree at all. Moral teaching of the above rules by parents or other authoritative figures is very necessary. You can argue that there is no need to bring God/religion into it, but society is much better off if those sort of moral rules are explicitly taught to children and teenagers. There is a good portion of people who will act horribly if they were not educated this way.

I agree with this 100%. I don't think empathy is genetic, but I don't state that it can't be. The study of social sciences tends to point towards the former, so at the very least any genetic propensity towards empathy is easily over ridden by societal standards.

My morality, and my empathy, were taught to my primarily by my parents, and by my broader community. Likewise, I consider it my responsibility to impart this knowledge to my children, and demonstrate it within my broader community.

You don't need a concept of morality to dislike lying, cheating, stealing, harming others etc. This is an example of how humans have a hard time accepting that others don't have to behave the way they want. You prefer a society where people don't do these things, so you try to come up with a justification as to why they can't do them (it's wrong, you shouldn't).

Regardless, you can still teach children not to lie, and it should be fairly obvious to them why people don't like that. It's probably better that way, because then you don't get silly moral absolutes ingrained in their heads - the idea that you can never lie, or all lying is wrong. Most dishonesty is fairly trivial ("no, your bum does not look big in that"). In fact, lying can often be necessary or even a positive behaviour, hence the term "white lie".

The real problem people have with letting go of morality, is what if others don't want to behave in the ways you like? Without morality, you no longer have an excuse to drag these people over the coals and demonize them. It's hard for people to grasp the idea that, murderers for example, are not actually evil scum who are acting against some divine laws, but just people who are behaving in a way you really hate.

Without the concept of morality, there'd be a lot less anger in the world, and people would calmly work to try and change things they didn't like. Also, keep in mind that it's the exact same concept that people use to justify throwing acid in the faces of women, to abuse homosexuals etc. In their system of morality, that is "right" and the people they're abusing are "wrong" and "bad".

Basically, people don't seem to realise that becoming amoral would have practically zero effect on your life. You'll still do the things you like doing, or agree with, and refrain from doing the things you dislike doing, or disagree with.

That's all morality is anyway. Humanity's own invention to try and force people to do what they like, and refrain from doing what they dislike. It's the philosophical way people try to deal with their own emotions towards things.

In the west people will think "what?! are you just going to start murdering people now?". In Iraq they might think "what?! you're not going to glue those homosexual's anuses shut?". Bleh.