Questions for Atheists

[Luddly Neddite]

What is the meaning of life?

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

Murder, rape and theft are wrong because they harm others. These acts have been illegal in every legal system ever devised by civilized man. They are not dependent on religious beliefs.

And, in point of fact, plenty of "christians" commit those crimes every day. Indeed, they often commit crimes in the name of their god.

I've never heard of an atheist committing crimes in the name of atheism.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

beep boop beep boop.

My calculations according to SCIENCE and reason conclude no organized faith is necessary for a moral society.

But, morality is subjective, can't define moral , beep boop beep boop data overload!

No response from you.
Understood.

Response not computed, rephrase, beep boop.

Okay, you say you don't understand the response.

That does not mean its not valid.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Organized religion was the foundation for the first civilizations(see Ur). The first agrarian societies were organized by a priestly caste, because organized faith not only unified society(homogeneity is necessary for a socially cohesive society, read Putnam) but formed the basis for a social contract that maintained the order; this social cohesion and the social contract created the conditions that allowed for the advancement(politically, technologically, economically, socially) of human societies . Without these institutions, organized on the premise of religion, humanity would have never advanced beyond hunter gatherer societies.

But of course, spergy shitlib atheists have no concept of social interaction or knowledge of history before 1965.

No, it wasn't.

Go further back.

 

[alan1]

What is the meaning of life?

Neither theists nor non-theists can answer that question to my satisfaction, and probably not your satisfaction either.
What I do know is that every living species attempts to preserve its life and perpetuate the future life of its species, regardless of whether said species is even capable of religious thought or belief.

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

Yes, they are wrong. Whether I am a theist or a non-theist does not change the fact that I should not be in a position (or allowed) to end your life based upon my personal preferences, force you to have sex based upon my personal preferences, or take the fruits of your labors simply because I want what you have.

All those concepts are simple to understand and none require religion as a basis.

Something you didn't ask about was slavery. Is slavery wrong?
Many theists/religions (in past times), had no problem with slavery. Today, pretty much everybody, theists and non-theists alike, agree that slavery is wrong. I'm sure that you, being a moral person, agree that slavery is wrong. Is the moral of not allowing slavery a religious tenet, or a social evolution outside of religion? I would say it is a social evolution that was best for society. No different than outlawing murder, rape and theft.

 

[thebrucebeat]

This is the problem in the mind of the left, the state is the society in your view. It fits your State-Worship ideology. The progressive state has replaced the Church as the moral arbiter, with a doctrine of objective relativism.

A state church does not necessarily equal a society bound by a common faith. Learn the difference.

And for that reason I know no one that worships the state.
The state is a tool, a methodology for allowing as much freedom as possible and maintain some kind of civic order.
You are free in our system to believe any silliness you like, secular or religious. You can't expect it to be enforced, however.
No establishment, no interference with free exercise.
Pretty simple.

Yes you do, through your words, you clearly think state=society. You have shown don't understand the concept that organized religion can bind communities together independent of the state, even in the face of a hostile secular state(see Orthodox Christian communities in the USSR).

Sorry, I don't endorse your dystopian state where maximum "freedom" comes before "some kind of civic order". Buzzwords like freedom allow people to veil their ignorance in feel good platitudes while society rots from the inside out. How about instead of having a society in which we "do what we want as long as we don't hurt others" that promotes atomization, separation, community breakdown, and moral relativism, our older generation, we promote the notion to not only not hurt others but also to not hurt ourselves by discouraging anti-social behavior.

Your hyper-individualist ethic fails to recognize individuals can't exist independent of a society. Human relations are the smallest atom of society, not the individual. You cannot have a one man society.

LOL!!!
I'm about as far from a hyper-individualist as you are going to find. I think the whole concept of the rugged individualist, the "cowboy mythology" is killing us and preventing us from seeing each other as fellow countrymen first, and "other" after. We are far too ready, like you are, to separate the "real Americans" from the ones that are destroying some artificial vision of the country from within.
We have always been diverse. We have trolled for diversity. From the Huegenots to the Quakers, from Deists to Muslims, from the Irish migration to the Eastern European to the Chinese that built our railroads, we have built this country on the very back of diversity, and all the variety of crazy individuals make up the patchwork quilt that is our society. Gays have always been a part of it. As you hum a Cole Porter tune, thank the gay history of our country. They are part of the sheetmusic of our country.
I am an older American. Don't lean on your age to excuse your desire to homogenize a country that was built on the very opposite of the concept.

 

[Steinlight]

Organized religion was the foundation for the first civilizations(see Ur). The first agrarian societies were organized by a priestly caste, because organized faith not only unified society(homogeneity is necessary for a socially cohesive society, read Putnam) but formed the basis for a social contract that maintained the order; this social cohesion and the social contract created the conditions that allowed for the advancement(politically, technologically, economically, socially) of human societies . Without these institutions, organized on the premise of religion, humanity would have never advanced beyond hunter gatherer societies.

But of course, spergy shitlib atheists have no concept of social interaction or knowledge of history before 1965.

No, it wasn't.

Go further back.

Yes it was. Name me a secular society that predated Ur or Sumer. I will save you the trouble, you can't. You are simply wrong, and should quit before you make yourself look more ill informed than your avatar suggests.

 

[Steinlight]

And for that reason I know no one that worships the state.
The state is a tool, a methodology for allowing as much freedom as possible and maintain some kind of civic order.
You are free in our system to believe any silliness you like, secular or religious. You can't expect it to be enforced, however.
No establishment, no interference with free exercise.
Pretty simple.

Yes you do, through your words, you clearly think state=society. You have shown don't understand the concept that organized religion can bind communities together independent of the state, even in the face of a hostile secular state(see Orthodox Christian communities in the USSR).

Sorry, I don't endorse your dystopian state where maximum "freedom" comes before "some kind of civic order". Buzzwords like freedom allow people to veil their ignorance in feel good platitudes while society rots from the inside out. How about instead of having a society in which we "do what we want as long as we don't hurt others" that promotes atomization, separation, community breakdown, and moral relativism, our older generation, we promote the notion to not only not hurt others but also to not hurt ourselves by discouraging anti-social behavior.

Your hyper-individualist ethic fails to recognize individuals can't exist independent of a society. Human relations are the smallest atom of society, not the individual. You cannot have a one man society.

LOL!!!
I'm about as far from a hyper-individualist as you are going to find. I think the whole concept of the rugged individualist, the "cowboy mythology" is killing us and preventing us from seeing each other as fellow countrymen first, and "other" after. We are far too ready, like you are, to separate the "real Americans" from the ones that are destroying some artificial vision of the country from within.
We have always been diverse. We have trolled for diversity. From the Huegenots to the Quakers, from Deists to Muslims, from the Irish migration to the Eastern European to the Chinese that built our railroads, we have built this country on the very back of diversity, and all the variety of crazy individuals make up the patchwork quilt that is our society. Gays have always been a part of it. As you hum a Cole Porter tune, thank the gay history of our country. They are part of the sheetmusic of our country.
I am an older American. Don't lean on your age to excuse your desire to homogenize a country that was built on the very opposite of the concept.

You may think you aren't a hyper-individualist, but you are. The rootless atomism you support, where you goal is to maximize freedom and no individual has a monopoly on morality(relativism) prevents the forming of a community and the strengthening of social bonds you claim to support.

Now you are changing the subject away from religion and morality to a conversation on diversity. But I suppose "diversity" is a moral tenant, the highest moral tenant of the left these days, so I am not surprised.

You can have diversity or community, you can't have both. We certainly don't have the latter in America, for a plethora of reasons. Secularism for one, "diversity" from immigration another, the flawed individualist ethic this country was founded on, and the simple society is simply out of scale(the country is too large, it would be impossible to contain just one community in this large of a space).

 

[Steinlight]

What is the meaning of life?

Neither theists nor non-theists can answer that question to my satisfaction, and probably not your satisfaction either.
What I do know is that every living species attempts to preserve its life and perpetuate the future life of its species, regardless of whether said species is even capable of religious thought or belief.

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

Yes, they are wrong. Whether I am a theist or a non-theist does not change the fact that I should not be in a position (or allowed) to end your life based upon my personal preferences, force you to have sex based upon my personal preferences, or take the fruits of your labors simply because I want what you have.

All those concepts are simple to understand and none require religion as a basis.

Something you didn't ask about was slavery. Is slavery wrong?
Many theists/religions (in past times), had no problem with slavery. Today, pretty much everybody, theists and non-theists alike, agree that slavery is wrong. I'm sure that you, being a moral person, agree that slavery is wrong. Is the moral of not allowing slavery a religious tenet, or a social evolution outside of religion? I would say it is a social evolution that was best for society. No different than outlawing murder, rape and theft.

Why are murder, rape and theft wrong?

 

[Crystalclear]

This thread is full of horse crap. People do know what can and cannot be done. Morals do also exist without religion. What the hell is wrong with you for thinking that it is normal to rape groups of people if there is no God?

Nice way of not answering the questions...

And I'm true. And most societies in Europe or Canada are not religious. They are still civilized.

 

[Steinlight]

This thread is full of horse crap. People do know what can and cannot be done. Morals do also exist without religion. What the hell is wrong with you for thinking that it is normal to rape groups of people if there is no God?

Nice way of not answering the questions...

And I'm true. And most societies in Europe or Canada are not religious. They are still civilized.

Just because the nations of Europe ignore their religious foundations, doesn't mean they don't exist, and they do so at their own demographic peril. Their new progressive outlook, this so called civilization of decadence and solipsism will see them bred out of existence in the homelands their supposedly backward and religious forefathers founded.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm no fan of government and no fan of religion either.

I am best described as an agnostic with atheistic tendencies.

The idea that one who does not believe in god or some eternal reward for good behavior cannot have personal morality is ridiculous.

You don't understand the foundations of your personal morality

Very few will go along with your libertarian view of a social free for all. It is unpractical, anti-social, and would be corrosive to society at large if implemented.

So a live and let live attitude would be detrimental?

Tell me who is the better man:

The man who lives a moral life because he either wants an eternal reward or he is terrified of eternal punishment or the man who lives a moral life with no expectation of reward and no fear of punishment?

IMO it's the latter because it is done without fear or greed as a motivator.

 

[amrchaos]

Organized religion was the foundation for the first civilizations(see Ur). The first agrarian societies were organized by a priestly caste, because organized faith not only unified society(homogeneity is necessary for a socially cohesive society, read Putnam) but formed the basis for a social contract that maintained the order; this social cohesion and the social contract created the conditions that allowed for the advancement(politically, technologically, economically, socially) of human societies . Without these institutions, organized on the premise of religion, humanity would have never advanced beyond hunter gatherer societies.

But of course, spergy shitlib atheists have no concept of social interaction or knowledge of history before 1965.

No, it wasn't.

Go further back.

Yes it was. Name me a secular society that predated Ur or Sumer. I will save you the trouble, you can't. You are simply wrong, and should quit before you make yourself look more ill informed than your avatar suggests.

Actually the first religion probably were not well organized. In fact. if anything, religion(be it organized or not) was created to justification for the ethical norder in a particular society.

Also not the flaw in your argument as well. You are suggesting that the earliest civilization unearthed by Archaeologists are the first ones but the truth may have been that there were earlier and even simpler civilizations that Archaeologists have yet to find. In others words, we might not what was the first civilizations were.

Therefore our inability to name a civilization earlier than Sumer does not mean there was no civilization earlier than Sumer.

By the way, I do have a reply to your question in the op. I have to warn you that it is a bit long winded and mostly based my opinions about morality so it may take awhile to post it here.

 

[amrchaos]

What is the meaning of life?

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

I am going to number the questions. Here, MO stands for my opinion. I must take the stance that I am dealing with my personal impressions and should not be taken as the answer. I am fully open to constructive criticism. Please note, Constructive criticism does not include rudeness nor condemnation because I may not agree with you.

Q1.)What is the meaning of life?

MO)Understand, this question imply a degree of knowledge that I believe all of us lack and we are resorted to making assumptions. Even so, it still forces me to ask why do you think life must have a meaning? What if it does not, would you give up on life? If so, why?

At times, I think individuals create or choose the meaning of their own life and the lives of other people and things. That is, each one of us assume and then choose this meaning and then carry on with their lives in a way that is meaningful to them. Does this mean that life is for own discretion, to be defined and redefined as we please? Maybe or maybe not. Again, I think this question imply a degree of knowledge that I doubt anyone has.




Q2)Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?


MO)Before I begin, let me give you an idea on how I believe on how morality is determined. First there concepts that address an aspect of the human condition. Two of which I will used to address this question are:

a. What I prefer or do not prefer.
b. What most individuals would prefer or do not prefer.

In no way does this exhaust all possible concepts when dealing with a moral issue. Also, it is possible for other concepts that are later introduced that I may agree with or argue against due to some individual preference.

Now to answer. No I do not think murder, rape or theft is moral due to (a) I prefer not to be raped, murdered and robbed as well as (b)I doubt that others would wish me to rape, murdered or steal from them. Note, I have used a variant of the golden rule: Do unto others as I would have them do unto me.

Unfortunately, I can give a hypothetical in which the golden rule becomes absurd.

(H1)Let say, I am a twisted piece of work. That I liked to be raped or enjoy being robbed or relish the idea of being murdered. Would that mean, to (hypothetical) me that rape, murder or theft is now morally acceptable? The answer is no, even if the hypothetical me prefer and seeks justifications for these actions. The reason here is due to (b) which overrides (a). Do I really need to explain how this hypothetical turns the golden rule upon its head?



Now I hope this does not give the impression that determining what is moral is a simple affair. I have to admit is not and does not follow a consistent / logical order of which one concept always overrides another. Here a 2nd Hypothetical situation is needed.
(H2) For instant, Let say live in a society in which every woman expect to be raped and every man is a rapist. Would that make rape moral under the circumstance you do not prefer to be raped despite what others expect or prefer? I say the answer is no again. Here, it would seem that a) would override b)

Then there is an even third hypothetical situation in which I am a twisted piece of work(from H1) and we have the society in (H2), would rape be moral now?. Of course not! Note that the concepts (a) and (b) does not seem to contradict. Here is where the introduction of a new concept is needed--(c)What is best for the group(as an unit).

I doubt that I would need to explain why this would override (a) or (b). (Think about what this does to social order) Nor do I think I have to come up with examples where either (a) or (b) would override (c). There are plenty examples of this one when looks at the failure of organizations. Usually, these stem from the organizational leaders not taking into account that the organization is made up of individuals. Almost like saying “You can't see each tree because you are looking at the entire forest!” A strange reversal to an old saying.

Determining what is or isn't moral is not as simple as following set rules or declaring one concept more important than another. You really have to think about the issue at stake. Even worst, If there was a “Moral Science”, as in the study of moral orders and moral semi-orders ,one would come away with the idea that we are simple choosing what is and is not moral. There does not seem to exist a solid philosophical foundation to rest all moral orders on.

In other words, I may declare rape murder or theft immoral to my understanding—it is not necessary for another to agree with me. To address this, I think religion became mans mean of realistically addressing this problem. First, religion sets up a preferred moral order. Second, religion provide a justification to get rid of those who disagree with said moral order. Also realize that questioning a religion validity is tantamount to “peaking behind the curtains”--so doubters and disbelievers of the religion are treated in the same way as those that disagree moral order.


Well, at least, this is what I think.

 

[alan1]

What is the meaning of life?

Neither theists nor non-theists can answer that question to my satisfaction, and probably not your satisfaction either.
What I do know is that every living species attempts to preserve its life and perpetuate the future life of its species, regardless of whether said species is even capable of religious thought or belief.

Are murder, rape and theft wrong? If so, why?

Yes, they are wrong. Whether I am a theist or a non-theist does not change the fact that I should not be in a position (or allowed) to end your life based upon my personal preferences, force you to have sex based upon my personal preferences, or take the fruits of your labors simply because I want what you have.

All those concepts are simple to understand and none require religion as a basis.

Something you didn't ask about was slavery. Is slavery wrong?
Many theists/religions (in past times), had no problem with slavery. Today, pretty much everybody, theists and non-theists alike, agree that slavery is wrong. I'm sure that you, being a moral person, agree that slavery is wrong. Is the moral of not allowing slavery a religious tenet, or a social evolution outside of religion? I would say it is a social evolution that was best for society. No different than outlawing murder, rape and theft.

Why are murder, rape and theft wrong?

I already answered the question, see bold blue above. Simply because you choose to ignore the answer doesn't mean the answer does not exist.
I see now that you are a complete waste of my time.
Good day.

 

[Steinlight]

I'm no fan of government and no fan of religion either.

I am best described as an agnostic with atheistic tendencies.

The idea that one who does not believe in god or some eternal reward for good behavior cannot have personal morality is ridiculous.

You don't understand the foundations of your personal morality

Very few will go along with your libertarian view of a social free for all. It is unpractical, anti-social, and would be corrosive to society at large if implemented.

So a live and let live attitude would be detrimental?

Tell me who is the better man:

The man who lives a moral life because he either wants an eternal reward or he is terrified of eternal punishment or the man who lives a moral life with no expectation of reward and no fear of punishment?

IMO it's the latter because it is done without fear or greed as a motivator.

According to the relativism of the secularist, no man is better than any other as far as having a monopoly on morality goes. If there is no God, no objective morality, no meaning to life, why do you care if one man comes to moral conclusions based on faith and religious scriptures and the other doesn't? It won't make a difference in the end anyway.


The problem with Libertarians is, they strive for freedom above order and peace.

What you don't understand is, that is takes a well established society, that has had order and peace(through rule of law and a socially stable society), where freedom can thrive. Freedom is the byproduct of a well established order and rule of law where a state can guarantee those freedoms

In this current system, you can't just uproot the state without social chaos ensuing. Without the constraints of order, this dog eat dog every man for himself freedom you support will just eat itself. That is when you get situations like Somalia.

Also, Libertarians need to address the fact that man is not naturally wise, especially in the form of a mob. How would a decentralized state prevent mob rule?

The fact is, Libertarianism isn't feasible on a nation-state scale. You may cite somewhere like Singapore, which is city state, not really a nation state. However, even there they don't have an elected government that actively promotes a social conservative state through government policy. This stable social order allows for the free markets that Singapore is known for to thrive.

 

[Steinlight]

No, it wasn't.

Go further back.

Yes it was. Name me a secular society that predated Ur or Sumer. I will save you the trouble, you can't. You are simply wrong, and should quit before you make yourself look more ill informed than your avatar suggests.

Actually the first religion probably were not well organized. In fact. if anything, religion(be it organized or not) was created to justification for the ethical norder in a particular society.

Also not the flaw in your argument as well. You are suggesting that the earliest civilization unearthed by Archaeologists are the first ones but the truth may have been that there were earlier and even simpler civilizations that Archaeologists have yet to find. In others words, we might not what was the first civilizations were.

Therefore our inability to name a civilization earlier than Sumer does not mean there was no civilization earlier than Sumer.

By the way, I do have a reply to your question in the op. I have to warn you that it is a bit long winded and mostly based my opinions about morality so it may take awhile to post it here.

That first paragraph is full of contradictions, first you say no organized religion existed in Sumer or Ur, don't know where you got that idea. But then you say just as I did, just in a different way, that religion was used to organize society. You need to read up on Sumer and Ur and solve your inner contradictions before we can continue this facet of the discussion in any constructive way.

Also, how about instead of living in a fantasy world, where we hypothetically find an atheist civilization older than Sumer, we put our thinking caps on and use some common sense.

Given all the first city states that emerged in Mesopotamia on the basis of religious order, would it be reasonable to suggest that undiscovered city states emerged on a secular or atheist basis? And what historical evidence do you have to contend such a point.

The idea that we can't analyze and come to conclusions about human history because we are always learning more would stop us from learning more to begin with.

Also, I didn't see your reply to the OP. I don't care for long winded replies, so cut it down and re post it, and I will respond.

 

[Steinlight]

Neither theists nor non-theists can answer that question to my satisfaction, and probably not your satisfaction either.
What I do know is that every living species attempts to preserve its life and perpetuate the future life of its species, regardless of whether said species is even capable of religious thought or belief.


Yes, they are wrong. Whether I am a theist or a non-theist does not change the fact that I should not be in a position (or allowed) to end your life based upon my personal preferences, force you to have sex based upon my personal preferences, or take the fruits of your labors simply because I want what you have.

All those concepts are simple to understand and none require religion as a basis.

Something you didn't ask about was slavery. Is slavery wrong?
Many theists/religions (in past times), had no problem with slavery. Today, pretty much everybody, theists and non-theists alike, agree that slavery is wrong. I'm sure that you, being a moral person, agree that slavery is wrong. Is the moral of not allowing slavery a religious tenet, or a social evolution outside of religion? I would say it is a social evolution that was best for society. No different than outlawing murder, rape and theft.

Why are murder, rape and theft wrong?

I already answered the question, see bold blue above. Simply because you choose to ignore the answer doesn't mean the answer does not exist.
I see now that you are a complete waste of my time.
Good day.

I am not ignoring your answer. all you said is you should not be able to murder, rape, or steal from others. You didn't say why this is wrong. That is what I am asking, why is it wrong?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You don't understand the foundations of your personal morality

Very few will go along with your libertarian view of a social free for all. It is unpractical, anti-social, and would be corrosive to society at large if implemented.

So a live and let live attitude would be detrimental?

Tell me who is the better man:

The man who lives a moral life because he either wants an eternal reward or he is terrified of eternal punishment or the man who lives a moral life with no expectation of reward and no fear of punishment?

IMO it's the latter because it is done without fear or greed as a motivator.

According to the relativism of the secularist, no man is better than any other as far as having a monopoly on morality goes. If there is no God, no objective morality, no meaning to life, why do you care if one man comes to moral conclusions based on faith and religious scriptures and the other doesn't? It won't make a difference in the end anyway.


The problem with Libertarians is, they strive for freedom above order and peace.

What you don't understand is, that is takes a well established society, that has had order and peace(through rule of law and a socially stable society), where freedom can thrive. Freedom is the byproduct of a well established order and rule of law where a state can guarantee those freedoms

In this current system, you can't just uproot the state without social chaos ensuing. Without the constraints of order, this dog eat dog every man for himself freedom you support will just eat itself. That is when you get situations like Somalia.

Also, Libertarians need to address the fact that man is not naturally wise, especially in the form of a mob. How would a decentralized state prevent mob rule?

The fact is, Libertarianism isn't feasible on a nation-state scale. You may cite somewhere like Singapore, which is city state, not really a nation state. However, even there they don't have an elected government that actively promotes a social conservative state through government policy. This stable social order allows for the free markets that Singapore is known for to thrive.

I never mentioned libertarianism.

 

[Steinlight]

So a live and let live attitude would be detrimental?

Tell me who is the better man:

The man who lives a moral life because he either wants an eternal reward or he is terrified of eternal punishment or the man who lives a moral life with no expectation of reward and no fear of punishment?

IMO it's the latter because it is done without fear or greed as a motivator.

According to the relativism of the secularist, no man is better than any other as far as having a monopoly on morality goes. If there is no God, no objective morality, no meaning to life, why do you care if one man comes to moral conclusions based on faith and religious scriptures and the other doesn't? It won't make a difference in the end anyway.


The problem with Libertarians is, they strive for freedom above order and peace.

What you don't understand is, that is takes a well established society, that has had order and peace(through rule of law and a socially stable society), where freedom can thrive. Freedom is the byproduct of a well established order and rule of law where a state can guarantee those freedoms

In this current system, you can't just uproot the state without social chaos ensuing. Without the constraints of order, this dog eat dog every man for himself freedom you support will just eat itself. That is when you get situations like Somalia.

Also, Libertarians need to address the fact that man is not naturally wise, especially in the form of a mob. How would a decentralized state prevent mob rule?

The fact is, Libertarianism isn't feasible on a nation-state scale. You may cite somewhere like Singapore, which is city state, not really a nation state. However, even there they don't have an elected government that actively promotes a social conservative state through government policy. This stable social order allows for the free markets that Singapore is known for to thrive.

I never mentioned libertarianism.

"I'm no fan of government and no fan of religion either."

Most Atheist Libertarians like yourself are just a more passive band of 1930s Spanish Anarchists(who wanted to destroy the Church and the State). At least they were willing to fight for their convictions. Regardless of how repugnant their ideology was, I respect them for that.

In the long run, your ideology is not feasible. Secular individualist societies will always be taken over by religious and tribalist societies.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Its wrong because society says its wrong.

Maybe the next society will say killing is nifty idea because we need to deal with over population. Or that you really need to up the bran content in your diet, eat a piece of fruit, take a walk. or screw that and just eat bacon and drink beer.

Important point is that people don't lie, steal, kill because an invisible and imaginary magic sky fairy tells them not to. Maybe people don't do those things because they're afraid of getting caught. Or maybe because the reward isn't high enough.

OTOH, I know of a guy who had the opportunity to take $3million in bearer bonds and didn't do it.

What's your frikken point? Or do you just like to nag?