Religious people, would you commit horrible atrocities if you didn't believe in gods?

Both OT and NT teach that you are damned on conscience alone.

Hence you have just condemned yourself.

"12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men "

Why would anyone put themselves in view of Eternal Torture with no possible gain ?? Can you stand on your life right now ?

God has manifested his love and conscience in everyone of us.Everyone has a sense of not wanting to hurt others-some just ignore that voice of conscientiousness

their beliefs/morals = god's "word" = what some homophobic, sexist, violent, racist liar wrote some 3000 years ago

It would appear that religion stunts human development.

One reason way I'm so against religion, but then all these people running around without any self control is not good either.

That is why it is good for religion to die slowly

I would argue that it's dangerously oversimplified to regard morals as entirely dictated by a deity.

As a Christian, I regard the development of the Judeo-Christian notion of God as a good example. They appear to have started out with a notion of God as not particularly concerned with morals so much as taking their side against their enemies (and, perhaps, their enemies' gods). This strain of thinking reaches a peak in the conquest-oriented, occasionally genocidal writings from the Deuteronomist period: Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges.

After that, the notion of a new monotheism in which God is not just the patron deity of the Israelites, but a sole deity of the universe (as in Isaiah and Jeremiah) and a universal standard of morality (as in first-century Judaism from Hillel to Jesus) developed. The earlier version was monotheistic in the sense of refusing to worship other gods; the later in the sense of insisting there was one true God, and worshiping that one. God emerges as the standard of morality because they redefined him as such.

The trouble with working from an arbitrary God to morality is that it can produce some abysmally immoral moralities. The genocides and ethnic cleansings of parts of the Bible are examples. So--because this tendency has not been a steady progression but rather a swinging pendulum--are the 19th-century American notions of how we should treat indigenous tribes or people of African origin or ancestry.

If we want God to be a basis for morality, we need to come up with the standards of morality first, and then associate them with God. The reverse process has justified atrocities, over and over again, on the basis that God wants us to commit them. Whether sacrificing children to Moloch or bullying gays because God disapproves of them, moralities that start with God are unreliable.

Of course, so are attempted moralities that start with logic. The writer who kicked off the New Atheist movement, Sam Harris, devoted an entire chapter to the horrors of the Inquisition and the Holocaust as examples of what's wrong with religious belief, especially emphasizing the evils of torture. A few chapters later, when he tried to invent an atheist morality based on logic, he concluded that torture was, in fact, morally acceptable.

The way to avoid either of these extremes is to rule out torture first, and accept no arguments (either atheistic or based on obedience to a deity) which consider it acceptable. That is, we have to start with some notion of morality, not with a notion of either a god or any other basis which cannot be trusted. Harris should have known, as it had been pointed out a century before by a prominent atheist, that logic needs some frame of reference for checking its conclusions.

It is true you can make your net of logical interpretation finer and finer, you can fine your classification more and more—up to a certain limit. But essentially you are working in limits, and as you come closer, as you look at finer and subtler things, as you leave the practical purpose for which the method exists, the element of error increases. Every species is vague, every term goes cloudy at its edges, and so in my way of thinking, relentless logic is only another phrase for a stupidity,—for a sort of intellectual pigheadedness. If you push a philosophical or metaphysical inquiry through a series of valid syllogisms—never committing any generally recognised fallacy—you nevertheless leave a certain rubbing and marginal loss of objective truth and you get deflections that are difficult to trace, at each phase in the process. Every species waggles about in its definition, every tool is a little loose in its handle, every scale has its individual error. So long as you are reasoning for practical purposes about the finite things of experience, you can every now and then check your process, and correct your adjustments. But not when you make what are called philosophical and theological inquiries, when you turn your implement towards the final absolute truth of things.

-- H.G. Wells, "Scepticism of the Instrument"

I am a Theist not Religious.

I personally would commit many acts of sodomy :D

What is the purpose of this question?

It shows complete contempt for those of faith, yet the author expects reasonable responses!

Truly, if I didn't know God I would have killed myself years ago.