Your response, deluxe, is inspiring. Your comment about veering from the main topic, however, seems more inaccurate than anything else you wrote. Yes, we're talking about ethics and not the existence of God, but since that existence or nonexistence can't be empirically demonstrated, (you show me life generating spontaneously in a Petridish dish, I show you the brilliance of an ant), the implications for both beliefs are the same. If God exists, in all likelihood God has rules, and even if there are no moral prescriptions, then the rule would be to construct them. If there is no God, since humans have a conflicted nature, metaphorically represented by Original Sin, then rules moderating that behavior are obligatory. Either way, you end up talking about rules and it's the struggle for rules, Church from State, gay marriages, abortion, Crusader wars, that're are now fueling the culture wars, and polarizing people who would otherwise be acting more gracious to each other.

The main implication beyond rules is the subject of authority. Who's in charge? What values should rule? How should society comport itself? Christians, especially evangelicals, insist, as their beliefs impel them to do, America would be best if it operated according to "the good book." Atheists, unfortunately, don't have as clear a consensus nor as prominent a set of moderating values, despite the best efforts of a few to accomplish that. Yes, it would be tough to triumph over the ruling religiosity at this point as you say, but Washington (a Mason), Jefferson, and Franklin (a Mason) and most of their colleagues did just that in establishing this democracy. On paper, and in the halls of Philadelphia and Washington, religious influence and doctrine, was subordinated by the secular values flowing out of the Enlightenment. In the process, agnostics, atheists, and cafeteria-style believers attached themselves to two basic presumptions: the golden rule would work, and Adam Smith's Invisible Hand would be sufficient in producing all the ethics required for ethical living. Though applied to free markets, the Invisible Hand was based on the Scottish Enlightenment principle of natural human sympathy, a kind of thinking man's golden rule.

Those presumptions and those values proved inadequate. Consequently, as in today's environment, religious factions stepped into the ethical vacuum, first with the Great Awakening and then with the Prohibition movement, along with other sundry groups. On your side, so to speak, the Utopians secluded themselves, some practicing syncretistic beliefs both religious and secular and some purely secular, including, Harmony Society, Nashoba, Brook Farm, Fourier Phalanx Movement, Oneida, Ferrer Colony, and the Spanish Anarchist Collectives. The commune idea again surfaced in the 60s, but proved to be fleeting. Unfortunately, for utopians and secularists looking for indigenous alternatives, the free-love, communistic bond, one-for-all-all-for-one model feel into various kinds of Caligulan disarray. Orgies? Drug-based rituals? Widespread nudity? To most American it sounded like paganism making its comeback. To sort through this great challenge, a trip back to the beginning would be helpful.

From the anthropological evidence, scant in many cases regarding ancient beliefs, it seems that once the mind evolved beyond its purely animal, instinctual operation (perhaps 100,000 since that's the period when burials were invented) it sought to find out who was in charge. Especially to provide reciprocation for the exchange of favoritism, particularly regarding death and an afterlife. Quite naturally, mind, not wanting to be frozen in fear, wanted a way out. The Egyptian "Book of the Dead" illustrates an obsession with death, whereas the Sumerian poem, "Gilgamesh," highlights a consciousness that's not obsessed by the fear of death, and a mindset that presaged the future for much of the world. At that point (from roughly 100,000 BC to apprx. 25,000 BC) the rules for primitive humans were based on first not offending the gods so it would rain, for instance, and so that one's soul would go to heaven. Since the instincts were still primary, e.g., you step in my cave I'll club you to death, the prevailing rules were brutish and divine-oriented.

As mind evolved, creation stories were produced explaining the origins of existence, that were refined over time until they became myths by about 3,000 BC. As mind grew more potent, the gods became weaker. The awe of the Egyptians morphed into a more independent mind of the Sumerians, and then finally triumphed in a form of proto self-reliance that permitted creators to picture the gods drunk on their own powers. This fomented a free-for-all paganism, which the Axial Age reacted against, including Buddha. Your affinity in that direction is reminiscent of the search for new meaning beginning in the 60s. If you believe in those values, my aim wouldn't be to undo them. But a few things should be made clear: Originally Buddhism was an ascetic religion that has been reformed (secularized?) over time, now allowing adherents to own BMWs. It also is based on transcendence beyond this world, and though there's no clear divinity per se, the amorphous suggestion is that we become, after dutifully being good, divinities of our own kind. Arguably, despite its delicate reasoning and exquisite humanism, it's yet another, albeit, majestically coded, mainstay religion. That doesn't mean it's not valuable, but it's not quite the secular alternative many atheists would embrace.

For that, history seems to suggest the wisdom of Confucius serves as virtually the definitive role model. Unfortunately, the Chinese found out the hard way that a society of dutiful, humble people lagged behind the more aggressive and competitive West and in response adopted atheistic Communism. Did they make a mistake? values

Anon2: I think that for much of the world, religion has been a constructive framework, like the posts in a tent.

That's one interesting way to think about it. I'd like to embellish your analogy with my admittedly cynical additions...

If the tent is what matters, but it can only be supported by the posts (or framework), I would contend that the material and form of the posts are not important. They could be rough-hewn pine, or they can be ornately-carved mahogany. An atheist (especially one with a good background in mechanics) sees the posts for their functional worth, and can live with any material that does the job. A bamboo post is fine if it is stout enough to support the weight. A slender glass rod would be a poor choice, and if anyone questions its suitability the discussion should be based on the material characteristics and an assessment of the load that needs to be supported.

A religious person might claim that there is only one type of post permitted, namely the Holy Post (The Father, The Son, and... nevermind). These special Posts took years of human toil to make, and they are stored inside a special crate that only the priests may touch. If you disparage the Post you will be punished, and to even suggest that a different post might be used is to be damned to Hell for eternity. Naturally, the religious people are very protective of their Posts, and have formulated many rituals around them.

The tent (humanity) needs support one way or another. The rains are coming and people need the shelter. An atheist looks around and gathers whatever posts will do the job and raises the tent. The religious person will demand the use of their special Posts, and only allow people into the tent if they worship the Posts. They then put a sign on the tent that reads 'Bob Jones University'. Amen.