Is there a reason to be honest if you don't believe in life after death?

[lockecole]

Just wondering...

 

[Prometheus]

Just wondering...

Why do you think that life after death and honesty have any relationship to each other?

 

[Deeviant]

Why do you think that life after death and honesty have any relationship to each other?

I personally think it has a large amount to do with honesty to one's self.

 

[False Prophet]

-Maybe you're in court and don't want to be locked up for perjury.
-Maybe you're on a polygraph machine.
-Maybe you're telling the bomb squad which wire to cut.
-Karma?
-Maybe you should tell the sweet 105 year old lady it's a "don't walk" sign when she asks you because you don't want Granny Crosswalk Pancakes to cause a scene near where your car is parked in the fire lane.
-Just in case you're wrong about the afterlife and you're being interviewed for heaven, God'll know you're lying when you say you like his tie.

 

[quasar987]

Is there a reason to be honest if you don't believe in life after death?

If you feel there isn't, listen to what Sade has to say on the topic. If you feel there is a reason, go to Kant.

Or if you're like me, refer to both of them depending on the situation .

 

[pmb_phy]

Just wondering...

There may be a reason depending on what you want. People have instincts and that includes the instinct to protect their children and themselves. A world in which people have no qualms about being honest is a worse place to live than a world in which people don't like to be honest. I'm not even sure if civilization can work like that.

Why do you think that life after death and honesty have any relationship to each other?

Almost everyone else in the world thinks that. Why don't you? Life after death is assumed by most people to be associated with God. It is also assumed by most that if God exists then honesty is part of what God wants. It is also assumed by most that doing what God wants gets you what you want and doing what God doesn't want results in severe consequences which are most unpleasant.

Pete

 

[Prometheus]

Almost everyone else in the world thinks that.

Please explain how you know for a fact that almost everyone in the entire world thinks this way.

Life after death is assumed by most people to be associated with God.

Does this statement not rule out a large percentage of people in the world? Are you contending that almost everyone in the entire world believes in god, and that the god that they believe in causes them to believe as you stated here?

It is also assumed by most that if God exists then honesty is part of what God wants. It is also assumed by most that doing what God wants gets you what you want and doing what God doesn't want results in severe consequences which are most unpleasant.

You repeatedly state that "is is assumed by most". How do you claim to know what most assume?

Even if I accept your statement as valid, and I do consider that for those who believe in god that it is sufficiently valid to accept in this context here, do you consider that your statement addresses the initial question of this thread?

 

[Tom McCurdy]

some sort of moral ethics that seem instictly rooted into humans that good is better than evil

 

[jammieg]

How is honesty different from deception? I mean they are both ways of getting what one wants, but what does one really want? Both of these actions must have certain affects on one's perception of reality and reality, it would be nice if everyone could be told exactly that being honest would make everything better but then they would be a liar.

 

[Deeviant]

How is honesty different from deception? I mean they are both ways of getting what one wants, but what does one really want? Both of these actions must have certain affects on one's perception of reality and reality, it would be nice if everyone could be told exactly that being honest would make everything better but then they would be a liar.

A gun and a smile are both things that can get you what you want, but I don't think I would compare the two. I see little value in associating them with each other.

 

[Vega]

The original question, I'm assuming you mean that if you don't believe in life after death, then there would be no penalty for being dishonest, and that without a penalty, there is no reason for honesty.

That is not the case. Dishonesty has a built-in penalty. If you habitually are dishonest, people around you will eventually notice. Once they notice, they treat you in a different way.

Your lifestyle would determine how much a problem you have from this. Someone who moves around a lot and lies and takes advantage of people they won't see again probably wouldn't be too affected. If you stayed in one place though, it would catch up to you sooner or later.

 

[Monad]

Is there a reason to be honest if you don't believe in life after death?

All you have to do is to think about the destiny of your childern.

 

[pmb_phy]

Please explain how you know for a fact that almost everyone in the entire world thinks this way.

Show me where I said that I know it for a fact and I will retract that statement. Can I prove it mathematically? No. Can I show a print out from measured brainwaves which show this to be true? No. Why did I say that? Simple - Statistically - most people are religious and the worlds dominant religions hold to the old testiment and from that it follows that honesty is rewarded after death. Do you find that logic to be in error? If so then why?

Some approximate stats - 1.1 billion Muslims, 2 billion Christians, 14 million Jewish, 850 million Hindus.

The first three religions in that list adhere to the old testiment. Adding Hindus, most of which believe in God (but not all) and that makes up greater that 50% of the worlds population. The world population on in 2003 was 6.3 billion. Buddhism isn't really a religion as much as it is philosophy. As I recall, they don't believe in God.

These stats may be incorrect but they seem right. That means that most of the people in the world are religious. All the more well known religious that I'm aware of believe in honesty in this life will be rewarded in the next. Its been a while since I've studied this in college but I was left with this impression and those impressions are formed through study. I may have gotten a few points wrong (e.g. Hindus may be different etc) but I think this is an accurate statement.

Do you claim otherwise?

Does this statement not rule out a large percentage of people in the world?

If you show me where I said "rules out a large percentage etc" then I will retract it. I said most and that was what my comments were based on, i.e. what most people in the world think. Over than 50% is most since "most" is defined as "greatest in quantity" or "majority". You may have thought of a different definition than that but I did not. I was actually thinking about 80% but I feel safe with my statement but with the above stats (which I did an internet search on) the statement I made is still accurate.

Are you contending that almost everyone in the entire world believes in god, and that the god that they believe in causes them to believe as you stated here?

Nowhere in any post in this forum did I said that almost everyone believes in God. "Almost everyone" to me would be something like 95%. Again, I said most

3.9 out of 6.3 billion are either Christian, Muslim, Jewish Hindu. Each of those religions believe in God, the same God in fact, and adhere to the old testiment in one form or another. Muslims even believe in the new testiment to some extent, e.g. that Jesus was the Messiah etc.

You repeatedly state that "is is assumed by most". How do you claim to know what most assume?

Statistics. I went to a Catholic college and religious studies was required and that was something I always remembered, i.e. that more people believe in God than people who don't. Can I prove the stats are correct? No. I went by memory mind you of what those stats were. I do recall previously thinking before I went to college that the opposite was true. When I found out different it left an impression on me. And I assume those who call themselves "Christian" practice Christianity etc. However I did a search and it seems I was off a bit. I was thinking 80% but its really about 62%. Ah well.

Even if I accept your statement as valid, and I do consider that for those who believe in god that it is sufficiently valid to accept in this context here, do you consider that your statement addresses the initial question of this thread?

Yes.

Pete

 

[Prometheus]

Show me where I said that I know it for a fact and I will retract that statement.

Almost everyone else in the world thinks that. Why don't you?

Your implication, I contend, is that almost everyone else in the world believes this way, and that I am a rare exception. Are you suggesting that I am wrong? You did not say "you believe" or "in your opinion", but made your statement in an objective manner.

Why did I say that? Simple - Statistically - most people are religious and the worlds dominant religions hold to the old testiment and from that it follows that honesty is rewarded after death. Do you find that logic to be in error? If so then why?

I do not consider that your usage of most is valid, and that is the source of my objection. To me, "most" does not mean 50% +1 (or more). This is particularly true when your usage of "most" follows "almost everyone in the world".

Some approximate stats - 1.1 billion Muslims, 2 billion Christians, 14 million Jewish, 850 million Hindus.

The first three religions in that list adhere to the old testiment. Adding Hindus, most of which believe in God (but not all) and that makes up greater that 50% of the worlds population. The world population on in 2003 was 6.3 billion. Buddhism isn't really a religion as much as it is philosophy. As I recall, they don't believe in God.

I contest your numbers. Even though you state that there are 2 billion Christians, for example, I do not think that you can contend that all but at most an insignificant minority holds the belief that you say. There is a significant minority that considers itself a member of one of these religions, but is not religious. Even so, you are far from a position to say most, I contend. Paricularly when you challenge me as being a rare exception.

That means that most of the people in the world are religious. All the more well known religious that I'm aware of believe in honesty in this life will be rewarded in the next.

You use the word honesty, but how honest is it to suggest that 50% plus a few deserves the use of the word "most"? This is particularly true when your usage of "most" follows "almost everyone", which I believe serves as an indicator of your meaning of the scope of "most".

Do you claim otherwise?

Yes. I claim that your use of the word "most" is inappropriate, particluarly in light of your use of "almost everyone".

If you show me where I said "rules out a large percentage etc" then I will retract it. I said most and that was what my comments were based on, i.e. what most people in the world think. Over than 50% is most since "most" is defined as "greatest in quantity" or "majority".

I said it, based on your usage of the word most. You claim that most is defined as majority, such that 50% + 1 qualifies as most. I consider this dishonest. I do not believe that you should say most, when you are estimating somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%. This is particularly true when your usage of "most" follows "almost everyone in the world".

Statistics. I went to a Catholic college and religious studies was required and that was something I always remembered, i.e. that more people believe in God than people who don't.

I hope that you did not learn at this school to talk about most people in the world when you mean at least 50%.

Almost everyone else in the world thinks that. Why don't you?

The reason that I objected to your posting was that you claimed that "almost everyone in the world thinks that, and why do I not". You then continued with "most", where the word most is now reduced to 50% + 1. I think that your post was misleading in this respect, and that is why I challenged it.

 

[pmb_phy]

Your implication, I contend, is that almost everyone else in the world believes this way, ...

Nope. I never said that. Open a dictionary and look up the word "most".

..and that I am a rare exception. Are you suggesting that I am wrong?

I'm suggesting that you read exactly what I said when someone asked me about what "most" means. Your comments after that seem to indicate that you ignore my explanation as to what I meant by "most".

You did not say "you believe" or "in your opinion", but made your statement in an objective manner.

Something like a statistic is objective. It is not subjective. E.g. the number of people in the world in 2003 was 6.3 billion. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. Same with religions and simple assumptions about them. At the time I posted it I was going by my recollections from my religion courses and what I recalled. I recall that the greater majority of the people in the world believe in God. I used the term "most" instead.

The rest of your comments are on the meaning of the word "most". That is off topic. I've stated what I mean in no uncertain terms when asked for clarification. That is what honesty means.

As far as what "most" means, look in a dictionary next time. You'll see it defined in several ways, one of which is most: the majority of where majority is defined as majority: a number greater than half of a total. That is from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

I see no reason to use terms which are defined in any other way than in a dictionary.

In any case this thread is not about what "most" means. Its about whether there a reason to be honest if you don't believe in life after death. If you prefer, go back to my original post and replace "most" with "the majority".

Pmb

 

[Prometheus]

Almost everyone else in the world thinks that.

As much as I personally dislike your use of the word "most" as meaning at least 50% +1, I believe that it is particularly misleading when following this citation. Did you or did you not say this? Does this quote by you mean at least 50% +1?

I recall that the greater majority of the people in the world believe in God. I used the term "most" instead.

Do you in normal speech say most or the greater majority for a situation regarding 50% + 1? If so, fine. Go ahead. I personally find it misleading, as I said.

As far as what "most" means, look in a dictionary next time. You'll see it defined in several ways, one of which is most: the majority of where majority is defined as majority: a number greater than half of a total. That is from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Yes, I grant that technically the dictionary does give that as a valid meaning. I am quite surprised to hear it used that way. I wonder how many people on this forum, for example, use most for any number greater than 50%.

In any case this thread is not about what "most" means. Its about whether there a reason to be honest if you don't believe in life after death.

I agree. In your very first repsonse to me, you said:

Almost everyone else in the world thinks that. Why don't you?

Let us forget our disagreement over your use of most for a moment. You began by saying that almost everybody else, but me, in the world thinks this way. By this phrase, do you mean most? In other words, by "almost everybody in the world" do you mean "at least 50%"?

If so, then I suggest that your own numbers do not support your statement. The numbers that you provide do not suggest "almost everyone in the world". If not, then I contend that your statement is misleading, because it was immediately followed by "Why don't you", as though I am a rare exception.

 

[pmb_phy]

I'm not going to keep getting into petty discussions of what "most"/"almost everyone" means and whether you think I was trying to mislead people. Its not worth my time and these terms mean different things to different people.

I'll say only this - When I said that most people in the world believe in life after death I had in mind about 90% from my recollections from my religious studies. To me 90% is almost everyone. If I had 10 marbles and someone took 9 of them from me then I'd say that they took almost all of them. However when I say "most" I mean more than 50%. When I say "amost everyone" I mean a large fraction. If you don't like that then readjust to those fractions since I have now defined what I mean in no uncertain terms.

The Washington Post claims that 82% of Americans believe in life after death.They also claim that 95% of Americans believe in God. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/wat/archive/wat042400.htm

Those stats seem about right to me and is close to what I recalled. And, of course, the stats will vary with the country. E.g. I'd say more people believe in an afterlife than they believe in God since some people who don't believe in God believe in an afterlife.

I don't see a good reason to discuss these stats anymore. Anymore and its petty bickering on something I have zero interest in and is off topic. Especially since lockecole doesn't seem to care about it. The stats are not the point. The point is that a lot of people believe in God and life after death and not a very small percentage.

If you're really that interested in stats and the meaning and perception of words then you can do it in PM. I will respond to all such questions in PM.

Pmb

 

[Locrian]

Almost everyone else in the world thinks that. Why don't you? Life after death is assumed by most people to be associated with God. It is also assumed by most that if God exists then honesty is part of what God wants. It is also assumed by most that doing what God wants gets you what you want and doing what God doesn't want results in severe consequences which are most unpleasant.

This is incorrect.

Christianity does make it clear that dishonesty is wrong. At the same time, it also makes it clear that any sin can be forgiven, and that being honest is not a requirement for going to heaven (believing Jesus is the son of god, was sent to die, etc is the requirement). Therefore, having an afterlife does not commit Christians to being honest, something else does.

The question of what an afterlife has to do with honesty is still a pertinent one.

What the original poster really meant to ask is "Is there morality without an objective power to punish immorality?" Then answer is yes.

 

[pmb_phy]

This is incorrect.

Only if taken out of context. If you noticed I said doing what God wants. God knows were're not perfect and knows we will sin. He wants us to repent and then chose not do sin .. ideally anyway. If you at first chose not to do what God wanted and then later repented then you ended up doing what God wanted, didn't you?

I've chosen not to get into a sermon mode (mostly because I'd be lousy at it ). That's pretty much of a turn off and this is not the place for details such as this. It's simpler to generalize like that since I assumed you knew what was meant. It now appears that sime didn't. May I assume that this point is now clarified?

I was speaking only about dishonesty and in this context - with no repentance.

Note: I looked in the Shorter Oxford English on the definition of "most"
Dictionary: 1a Greatest in size, largest; greatest in number, quantity, or
amount.

Pete

 

[Locrian]

If you at first chose not to do what God wanted and then later repented then you ended up doing what God wanted, didn't you?

Absolutely. You were dishonest, and you still go to heaven.

May I assume that this point is now clarified?

I was speaking only about dishonesty and in this context - with no repentance.

Then I may have misunderstood you. However, my point at the original post stands. The implication in the original post is that a belief in an afterlife has some bearing on honesty. Since you can be dishonest and go to heaven, I do not see any basis for that assumption, at least in the Christian religion. If he did not intend to include many large religions, he should have been more specific about which life after death he meant.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Truth is, we lie on a daily basis multiple times without even giving it any thought

Do you like my dress ?


yes of course I do YOU LOOK GREAT
:yuck:


I'm good at math :uhh:
I'm smart :uhh:
I'm succesfull whith the ladies :uhh:
I'm great with a football :rofl:

 

[Prometheus]

God knows were're not perfect and knows we will sin.

So now you are the spokesman for god as recognized by all religions.

Are you honest all of the time, or merely most of the time. I think that most people are honest most of the time, even if they do not believe in an afterlife. Of course, by your logic this statement says little, merely that at least 50% of people are honest at least 50% of the time.

May I assume that this point is now clarified?

Good one.

Note: I looked in the Shorter Oxford English on the definition of "most"
Dictionary: 1a Greatest in size, largest; greatest in number, quantity, or
amount.

I don't see anything about 50% +1.

Now, would you please look up "almost everyone in the world".

 

[pmb_phy]

The implication in the original post is that a belief in an afterlife has some bearing on honesty. Since you can be dishonest and go to heaven, I do not see any basis for that assumption, at least in the Christian religion. If he did not intend to include many large religions, he should have been more specific about which life after death he meant.

I don't follow. Do you mean that all people who are dishonest will absolutely go to heaven? BTW - I'm speaking in broad general terms since I don't know what God is thinking when it comes to each person. After all this is all guesses and conjecture since nobody knows what happens after you die. Frankly the notion has scared the heck out of me in the last few years having been so close to it.

So now you are the spokesman for god as recognized by all religions.

Of course not. However its impossible to have any real conversation about God without a few basic assumptions and I'm going by my personal beliefs which seems reasonable since several of the worlds religions follow it. Anytime anyone makes a statement about God they are making a statement which is impossible to prove. But when we discuss God we make assumptions/postulates/axioms or whatever you want to call them.

I think that most people are honest most of the time, even if they do not believe in an afterlife. Of course, by your logic this statement says little, merely that at least 50% of people are honest at least 50% of the time.

So what's your point? It appears from this statement of yours that you are forgetting my very first comment in this thread, or that you didn't read it. I posted the following comment

There may be a reason depending on what you want. People have instincts and that includes the instinct to protect their children and themselves. A world in which people have no qualms about being honest is a worse place to live than a world in which people don't like to be honest. I'm not even sure if civilization can work like that.

As such your claim that "at least 50% of people are honest at least 50% of the time." is incorrect. One reason for honesty may be related to a instinct and the desire to live which is best accomplished by living in a civilized world. Another reason is related to God and another is related to philosophy, e.g. Christianity which is God based and philosophy which are not but for which have an ethic such as Buddhism.

Now, would you please look up "almost everyone in the world".

Phrases cannot be "looked up" and what it means to an individual is obviously subjective. As I said, I once believed what you do about what the term "most" means and it was pointed out to me that I was incorrect. I therefore have adjusted my use of the term to more accurately reflect the precise definition of the term. You can use it as you like, but I will use it as defined.

So tell me - Do you believe in honesty and afterlife being related in anyway or not? Do you believe in honesty and God being related in anyway or not. If so in either case then why?

Pmb

 

[Locrian]

I don't follow. Do you mean that all people who are dishonest will absolutely go to heaven?

No, my point was that everyone who is dishonest could go to heaven. I really think I was clear on that. If a Christian is dishonest, that does not necessarily mean they will go to hell. The initial post suggests they go together; all I have to show is that they don't have to, under the religion's own structure.

Frankly the notion has scared the heck out of me in the last few years having been so close to it.

If you are Christian, read the new testament more carefully. Although some of Paul's teachings can sound pretty strict, Jesus himself sets rather easy standards for getting there. No Christian should have any fear of hell, it's just too easy to avoid. If you are not Christian, well then I suppose things could be different. However, in that case it is obvious the initial post was overly broad.

It is overhwelmingly clear to me that in at least one large, major religion that contains an afterlife, honesty and that afterlife are not related. The initial post does not ask a logical question.

 

[pmb_phy]

If you are Christian, read the new testament more carefully. Although some of Paul's teachings can sound pretty strict, Jesus himself sets rather easy standards for getting there. No Christian should have any fear of hell, it's just too easy to avoid. If you are not Christian, well then I suppose things could be different. However, in that case it is obvious the initial post was overly broad.

Its not the fear of Hell that scares me. Its the possibility that there is no afterlife and my consciousness simply winks out of existence that scares me.

I think we've gotten off the main track here - If one does not believe in an afterlife what is his motivation to be honest?

I'd say that one should think of what they're life would be like if they were a dishonest person. Any friends they have wouldn't be really good friends I'd wager. At one point in my life I had a "friend" who you simply couldn't believe what came out of his mouth. I had very little respect for him eventually. For several reasons I and am no longer friends with him. No great loss though. He was the kind of person who only thought of himself. I don't even think he knew how to carry on a conversation where the topic wasn't something to do with him.

Can one really flourish in a civilization if they are considered to be a dishonest person? I don't think that such a person would be dishonest all the time, just when it was convenient. I think its pretty obvious that atheists are not considered to be dishonest as a group so that seems to say something to this end.

Pmb

 

[Prometheus]

As such your claim that "at least 50% of people are honest at least 50% of the time." is incorrect.

My statement was meaningless, like yours, and was meant to be taken as meaningless.

Phrases cannot be "looked up" and what it means to an individual is obviously subjective.

Sure. I hope that you are smiling when you say that. You say "almost everyone in the world", a meaningless statement which you could not possibly verify and you could not possibly have evidence to support, and you pretend to honestly expect that I should recognize that "almost everyone in the world" means "at least 50%". Sure.

As I said, I once believed what you do about what the term "most" means and it was pointed out to me that I was incorrect.

I am sorry. I must have missed where you said that you once believed as I did. Can you post that quote?

I therefore have adjusted my use of the term to more accurately reflect the precise definition of the term. You can use it as you like, but I will use it as defined.

Funny, aren't you. Is this the "precise" definition that you are using? Are you being "precise" when you say "most" when you mean at least 50%? I think that you should reanalyze your situation. Otherwise, you will find as life goes on that everyone misunderstands you, because you are the only person in the world who knows the "precise" definition of the words that you use. Don't you think?

So tell me - Do you believe in honesty and afterlife being related in anyway or not? Do you believe in honesty and God being related in anyway or not. If so in either case then why?

I do not, and I do not.
Since you only requested my response if so in either case, I assume that you do not want my response if I do not. Therefore, I will leave it at that.

 

[Prometheus]

Its not the fear of Hell that scares me. Its the possibility that there is no afterlife and my consciousness simply winks out of existence that scares me.

Deep. Life must be much easier for "most" non religious types, as they don't have this fear to contend with.

I think we've gotten off the main track here - If one does not believe in an afterlife what is his motivation to be honest?

Are you suggesting that it is fear of punishment that causes "most" people to be honest?

Can one really flourish in a civilization if they are considered to be a dishonest person?

I admire your use of the impersonal pronoun "one". Now, you might consider pronoun agreement, as "they" is not in accord with "one" or "a person". Also, you might consider the subjunctive.

I think its pretty obvious that atheists are not considered to be dishonest as a group so that seems to say something to this end.

Good for you.

 

[pmb_phy]

Are you suggesting that it is fear of punishment that causes "most" people to be honest?

Nope. That is not what I am suggesting nor is it something I was suggesting. That was a restatement, in my own words, the topic of this thread.

I admire your use of the impersonal pronoun "one". Now, you might consider pronoun agreement, as "they" is not in accord with "one" or "a person". Also, you might consider the subjunctive.

This is incorrect -- in common speech, "they" is in agreement with "one" or "a person". I wasn't aware that this forum was part "rhetoric 101."

 

[Prometheus]

I wasn't aware that this forum was part "rhetoric 101."

I am sorry. I was just trying to be helpful.

I once believed what you do about what the term "most" means and it was pointed out to me that I was incorrect. I therefore have adjusted my use of the term to more accurately reflect the precise definition of the term.

I thought that once you know the precise grammatical form that you would jump on the opportunity to make use of it.

 

[pmb_phy]

As I said I don't see a good reason to discuss these stats anymore. Anymore and its petty bickering on something I have zero interest in and is off topic. I also said If you're really that interested in stats and the meaning and perception of words then you can do it in PM. I will respond to all such questions in PM. That's just so nobody gets the idea that I'm not willing to back up what I say.

There is too much to do here since you keep getting what I said wrong. E.g.

.. and you pretend to honestly expect that I should recognize that "almost everyone in the world" means "at least 50%". Sure.

I never said that "almost everyone" meant "more than 50%" any place. As I explained above "Almost everyone" to me would be something like 95%. When I said that the first time that is what my impression of the statistics are or were. I was going by my recollections of my religious courses. I guess I was off by about 20% and I explained that to you.

Too be honest, your comments are getting very sarcastic for no good reason and I'm not about to continue when you're in that mode.

 

[pmb_phy]

I thought that once you know the precise grammatical form that you would jump on the opportunity to make use of it.

Except that you got it wrong

 

[Prometheus]

Except that you got it wrong

Your statement is as incredibly enlightening and precise as we have come to expect from you.

 

[pmb_phy]

I am sorry. I was just trying to be helpful...
I thought that once you know the precise grammatical form that you would jump on the opportunity to make use of it.

I've chosen to go to a philosophy forum to discuss philosophy, not grammar etc.

Otherwise this is similar to going to a party at a friends house and having a conversation with someone and having someone your speeking to correct your grammar. If its not asked for then it is rarely welcome. That's why the Physics FAQ nettiquette section recommends not to do this.

 

[pmb_phy]

Your statement is as incredibly enlightening and precise as we have come to expect from you.

You've gotten pretty sarcastic so I've lost interest in discussing anything with you. Especially off topic comments. Had I explained you'd probably start getting into a debate about grammar.

However - In English we haven't got a gender-neutral singular pronoun. When someone doesn't want to say "he" or "she" they will often substitute "they", even though it's a plural. This is so common and well-understood, and the alternatives are so awkward, that it doesn't seem reasonable to call it "wrong".

I suspect that comments like this will launch you into some sort of correction mode on grammar. Have fun.

 

[Locrian]

I think its pretty obvious that atheists are not considered to be dishonest as a group so that seems to say something to this end.

As an atheist, I wish I could agree with that. The thing is, though, that atheists don't necessarily have anything at all in common, much less a similar moral outlook.

I do think that you gave fair enough reasons for why someone would be honest without religion. Social contract and individual respect seem capable of keeping someone honest most of the time.

I don't think the original question was well asked, but at the same time I think it's been answered.