Wow. Good question. I would say yes, and no.
The atheist has a religion. They still have an ideal of how one should live. You shouldn't flirt with your best friend's girlfriend. You should be there for your friend if he is in need.
I am going to disagree with the statement that atheists have a religion. While I am glad that you acknowledge that atheists are capable of being ethical, I don't think the word 'religion' is appropriate here, because atheists by definition do not have a religion, that is precisely what it means to be an atheist.
Now, perhaps you would agree that atheists are capable of acting ethically, and if this is true then their ethics must come from somewhere or something other than their religion.
By the same token, they may also choose to live selfishly, as a lot of the world does, and live callously, not helping others unless it gets them something.
Granted, Stalin and Mao were atheists and both of them were terribly evil men, but it would be patronizing of me to give you a list of religious people who have committed atrocities, as obviously you can think of many. The point being that it seems as if religion has little impact on whether or not one lives selfishly or not. If this is true, then does it not follow that religion isn't necessary to be ethical.
Of course there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, for example imagine a hardened criminal who upon entering prison "found Jesus" and changed his life. However, if religion (of any denomination) was the source for ethics, should it not follow that prison populations are highly secular.
Wow. Good question. I would say yes, and no.
With Christianity, one can follow it, or look to it for guidance. The bible says that when you sin with your mind, it is just as much a sin as if you do so physically.
Is that a good teaching? Does that not mean that if I secretly wished for someone to die, then in God's eyes, I may as well kill them, since an immoral thought is as damning as an immoral action?
The problem with the Bible, though, is that it can be misused, such as when Christ was in the wilderness, and the Scripture quoted by Satan. You can claim that gay people should be executed (something Enyart did in his ShadowGov first 100 days as president- <shiver>), quoting Leviticus, you can quote OT where God doesn't just hate the sin, but evildoers themselves, to justify hating people. Slave owners tried to use it to justify slavery, while it was clear that God wasn't on the side of Egypt when they enslaved the Jews.
This is a very astute point. Do you think that then perhaps ethics come from somewhere outside of religion, or the bible, then use certain parts of the bible to justify their preexisting ethical beliefs?
I am convinced that religion can influence your ethics. For example, I have learned a meditation to use when I feel hatred for someone, and use it to remove it, because my religion calls for it, and I know that it is right.
I don't know any atheist that would dispute this. Of course religion can influence your ethics, if this wasn't true then there would be no noticable difference between the ethics of religious and non-religious people. However, I have two points. The first being that there is a difference between influencing ethics and being the cause of ethics. Secondly, do you recognize a distinction between being ethical because your religion calls for it vs being ethical for the sake of being ethical, without thought to the punishment or reward incurred for the action?
