Atheists, in a hypothetical world in which religion is abolished, what framework of ethics can be in it's place?

This is not confined to churches.

The free world is filled with societies from model railway clubs through dozens of sports clubs, scouts, choirs, musical societies, social clubs, churches, Rotary clubs to major charitable organisations. Each of these usually has two or three people, sometimes more who work behind the scenes for years to keep the society going. Religion does not come into it with most of them. They often put in several hours every week but you'd hardly know since most of them don't talk about it much.

They clean up meeting rooms, tidy up afterward, see that the bills are paid, raise funds, organise events and on and on. At times they may be on the committees, sometimes not, but they are still there. For this they usually receive no payment, little recognition and frequently enough, uninformed criticism. Once in a very blue moon they may receive an award of some kind.

Consideration of every tribe, clan or nation that has ever existed show that they have a moral code. These groups cannot exist without such a code. Sometimes this code is distorted by superstition, religion, prejudice, politics and whatnot, but within the group it exists. This moral code may or may not be linked to religion. There is little sign of any moral code linked to the rabble of gods worshipped by ancient Greeks and Romans, for instance. If you want an example of a distorted moral code, read the Old Testament.

There is already a secular framework of ethics in place. It is currently trying to correct errors of the religious "ethic" system like devaluing personal gender choices and a woman's right to her own body. We are hopeful, we fixed slavery, segregation, suffrage and prejudice against the disabled. We wonder how people could NOT have seen these things were wrong, just like the current issues. Fear not about abolishing religion, no matter what your pastor or the Beckistanis or Libaughdians tell you, it won't happen. Atheists are great studies of history ( it's how we know there is no historical evidence for that Jesus guy) . One of the greatest lessons of history is that abolishing something only drives it underground and creates a violently fanatical desire for that thing. Think prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. Therefore, religion will die of it's own accord without any need to drive it away. Thanks to the wonders of the Internet your kids can look up facts about history that you should have been able to check out when you were sold this rubbish such as, the Egyptians never kept Jews as slaves so the whole "Exodus" story makes no sense. They will walk away from religion on their own, kids hate being lied to.

I don't want religion abolished, but Probably the same framework humanity has always used. Compassion, empathy, and the reality that we will always have to coexist with other human beings.

Edit: Yes, our natural motivations for morality are emotional. But that is the only way it can work. Morality never has and never could be a strict code you adhere to as nice as that might seem. Most cultures have tried to produce such codes. Legal systems are a good example. But there are always grey areas and people who suffer more than benefit should those codes be strictly enforced. That is why there are many thousands of lawyers and judges constantly reinterpreting it. In the end, all morality can ever be is just caring about other people.

-If one argues, as some deeply religious individuals do, that without God there can be no ultimate right and wrong - namely that God determines for us what is right and wrong - one can then ask the question: What is God decreed that rape and murder were morally acceptable ? Would that make them so ?

While some might answer yes, I think most believers would say no, God would not make such a decree. But why not ? Presumably because God would have some *reason* for not making such a decree. Again, presumably this is because *reason* suggests that rape and murder are not morally acceptable. But if God would have to appeal to *reason*, then why not eliminate the middleman entirely ?- Lawrence Krauss, A Universe From Nothing, Pgs 171-172.

“Radical Muslims fly planes into buildings. Radical Christians kill abortion doctors. Radical atheists write books.” Hemant Mehta

-With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.-

Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999 US physicist

According to the bible, which one of the following is immoral?

a) Raping someone

b) Treating women as objects

c) Picking up sticks on a Saturday

d) Genocide

e) Infanticide

f) Killing someone for having different views to you

g) Slavery

According to the Bible, only option c) is wrong. All of the others are either accepted as mainstream, or even encouraged, in the Bible.

However, you and I both know that all of the others are wrong and that c) is perfectly innocent. You do not get your morality from scripture and neither does anyone else.

Searching through religious scripture for morality is like searching through the sewers for small coins; sure, there is some in there, but is it really worth it?

What do you mean "in it's place"?

Get rid of religion and the world would INSTANTLY be a far more moral place. We have a good quality of living because of secularism, not because of religion. The last time we relied on religion as a moral framework we lived under theocracies.

0.2% of US prisoners are atheists. I don't think we have to worry about moral frameworks.

And despite Christians always talking about morality and judging people, they don't have a good track record when it comes to being moral, loving and tolerant.

empathy, compassion, and cooperation (as Jay said) none of which require religion of any sort. If you need a deeper sense of belonging than living a life without church, find some new friends. I don't like religion because it teaches people from an early age they are born dirty sinners and deserve to be tortured for eternity in some imaginary place of burning. Magical thinking is never a good thing.

Xians might get more respect if they actually acted like jesus.

Any ethical system can be utilized.

If we take an "Untamed Nature" ethos, such as carried in the claim of nature being "red in claw and tooth", that the "uncivilized" world is driven by violence and selfishness...altruism and charity is almost always more effective at long-term survival (both physical and genetic) than greed. Sure the lion may murder a human or gazelle without a second thought, but that same lion will sacrifice himself if it means the pride survives.

Or we can take any of the utilitarian ethical systems that exist: make the lives of as many people as possible as good as possible while making the lives of as few people as possible as bad as possible. Why? Because that makes people happy and, as anyone who has been happy will tell you, happiness is its own end.

Or we can take Aristotlean ethics, which balances personal happiness with the happiness of everyone else by emphasizing a compromise between the existent moral extremes. If you don't give to others, then people will die. But if you give too much, then you will die and so can't give any more to others. You want to abide by the "golden mean" of giving what you can afford to give. This will lead to you being happy and allowing society to survive.

The latter two are commonly taught in any ethics course. The first one is generally ignored by philosophers and ethicists. And the biologists who make such observations don't tend to apply their discoveries to ethics. But if you take the time to learn both population biology and ethics then it becomes obvious that the "Wild" is not nearly as unethical or amoral as humans have made it out to be.

Want me to continue?

The same framework of ethics that's currently in place, actually.

Religions CLAIM to provide a moral/ethical framework, but all they really do is co-opt the morals of the community and re-brand them as coming from their deity.

This is obvioust when you consider that the SAME religion will have DIFFERENT moral value sets in different places - it's the morals of the culture that the religion absorbs, not the other way around.

All men began as Atheists with the development of negative thought only those tribes that lived with out imagined fear , with natural moral codes that worked , that accepted spiritual experiences as totally natural did not develop religion, these were few they lived in balance physically , mentally , and spiritually , interacting sub consciously with the energy most call God , could we learn to do this again once science shows us ways to consciously interact with this energy only if we need to balancing mind and soul increasing positive thought and morality naturally without fear is the moral Atheist the way of the future.

More info Marc Lambert and God

There is nothing in the Bible that wasn't created by mankind in the first place...

Including the concept of a god... and morals... many of those, we no longer consider moral...

So the Bible is a basis for what in the first place?

IMHO