America! 'Cuz we’re living under Sharia law thanks to Comrade Obama.
This is what Protestant theologians and modern-day Western atheists believe - that religion without “belief” as its base and core is merely “theater.”
But modern scholars of religion, who actually, y’know, study how religious people (and not just theologians, mind you) actually think and feel and live their lives, have found that this doesn’t accurately reflect how religion works.
I wish. At least then I could find some goddamn descent shawarma or shishtouk.
I wouldn’t say “merely”; certainly religion has aspects beyond the beliefs that underlie it, be it a sense of community, or maintenance of cultural traditions. For many, those aspects might be more important than doctrine or beliefs. But, yes, I would argue that without belief in the divine Whatever that is sincerely held, one isn’t practicing a religion, but rather something different. Not inferior, but different.
ETA: But then again, I’m no scholar or religion, modern or otherwise.
I knew it, it’s all theater, isn’t it! 
This relates to the (unanswered) question I posed earlier: is the OP proposing a world that is atheist or just run by atheists, because if it’s the latter, I can certainly picture the atheist ruling class exploiting the theism of the masses by selling them on a war that is ostensibly a religious crusade but is really about economics.
As others have said atheism is a spectrum, not a monolithic group – in fact much the same can be said for any large group, amongst christians or muslims for example, there is more ideological diversity than there is unity.
The thing the irreligious lack is a rigid, codified morality, this I think is what is concerning you. Without that, we would be left to figure things out, which would probably trend toward situation-ethics. It would not be enough to know that a thing is wrong, we would have to know why it is wrong in this particular instance.
As a hypothetical, the bible says that god told us it is extremely wrong to take other people’s stuff and we could be faced with his infinite wrath for doing that (it is wrong because god said so). I have learned that my weird neighbor Ed who listens to his pet iguana is planning a shooting rampage at the mall. Now, I never go to the mall, so whenever he does this, it will not be me dodging his bullets, but I still think a shooting rampage is a bad thing. So, I know Ed is not home just now, I could break into his place and steal his guns, except, god told me it is wrong to do that. If I am a believer, that injunction will make me hesitate, if not, I am more likely to try to prevent a massacre with a theft.
Without a rigid moral code, there are fewer hypocrites, because we make decisions based on “whys”, not stone carvings. Consider the case of the fine christian women who protest outside of women’s health clinics and sneak in the back door of an evening to have their personal indiscretions taken care of (it happens). In a world run without religion, we all stand a better chance of being honest, unconflicted people, and I think that would be a good thing.
Hmmmm, I know atheists hate when you mention them, but guys like Stalin or MaoPol Pot could give you a hint.
However, Jane the atheist chick who work hard and helps a charity and believes in personal responsibility and dosen’t think “religion teh evil!!!eleven!!” would be fine.
<bolding mine> - thats quite a thing to just throw in there as a fact like that - the same can be said for the ‘religous’ as well with all the variant interpetations of the text.
I have a ‘rigid’ moral code - its just not based on the whims of the priesthood and a 2000 year old document.
So - you should reconsider that wording - or you need to clarify and cite that and be prepared to back it up.
“External” moral code is more accurate, though even it’s not spot-on; morals come from culture at least as much as religion. Observe the conflict between the honor culture and Christian forgiveness amongst black Americans and white Southerners, both heavily Christian groups. One’s morals might come from the teachings of family & community, and be just as external as those read in a holy book, if they are adopted wholesale.
but even still - to even imply that the “irreligous lack a moral code” is flatly wrong, and is the reason we have these “debates” that assume atheists are godless heathens bent on world destruction, raping and pillaging -
‘morals’ come from a number of places, etc.
I do hope the OP comes back after I went though all the trouble of spending 23 seconds to find the list that so eluded him.
Oh, I agree, but I wouldn’t say For You implied that the irreligious lacked a moral code, jist a certain type of moral code.
As it happens, my quest for world destruction, rape, and pillage is coincidental to my atheism.
yeah - maybe I am misreading the intent of that - I agree with his final conclusion - I also would not agree that any ‘religious’ code is ‘rigid’ - until you get to the extremes of it -
I don’t hate it when people display a misunderstanding of history and politics, but it does encourage me to take them less seriously.
For the sake of a smoother discussion than the OP’s last one, can we offer a few answers based on his misconception that atheists are a monolithic organization with an agenda? If so, then atheist approved textbooks would ensure that society as a whole has a better grasp on science and history. (No muddy Creationist or Young Earth nonsense hindering our students) Fewer banned books, too. Atheist approved family medicine would ensure that family planning is available to all rather than the moratorium Catholic charities have placed on birth control. Fewer unwanted children would lead to less poverty and less hunger. A small number of JWs and Christian Scientists would be healthier. A small sector of the economy which is handicapped by blue laws would be free to operate during any hours. More tax revenue from currently held church property, natch. LGBT persons would have been served by organizations which still refuse to offer shelter and assistance. Fewer hate crimes against same if there were no church to reinforce prejudices.
So slightly more revenue, fewer hate crimes, more persons served by charity, a population regulated by family planning, smarter students.
We’ll see if the idea that there are no “atheist” politics or morals penetrates. Atheism is just lack of belief in God. Nothing more.
Karl Rove and Pete Stark are both atheists, and they are about as far apart politically as they can be.
So the only answer to the OP is that there is no way of knowing the answer unless a very particular set of atheists is defined. The whole OP is a category error, really.
To clarify, there is no specific moral code associated with not believing in a deity. As Human Action put it, morality is really more a cultural thing than a religious thing (typically, I think, when a religion forms, it adopts and enshrines the local culture, attaching the divine mandate to it, because, well, we know how talkative gods are).
A world dominated by unbelievers (in which the religious are kind of like pets) would not have any kind of biblical mandates, because there is no “atheist bible”. Believer-types often think of unbelievers as wholly amoral and wont to wantoness, because they simply cannot imagine not having a well-carved moral code from on high. In many cases, countries would still abide by timeworn traditions of local culture, but I expect there would be somewhat greater flexibility in its application because we would have to use due consideration in making and supporting difficult choices. I mean, even the religious bend their laws to make them fit a given situation.
Again, atheists are a diverse group, you may have a strong moral code but many do not, just as many believers may have divine authority to draw on but often choose to ignore or evade it. My point is that “god said so” is not a satisfactory rationale for determining right from wrong, take religion out of the picture and decisions are more likely to be based on reason over rote. God takes the burden of thought from us, unbelief frees us (and forces us) to use our heads.
No codified moral code perhaps?
Thanks for making my point better than I could.