Atheism is more dangerous than Theism

Thankyou Con for your response and sorry for my time getting back to you;Con replied:"The fact that there is no higher authority than yourself does not automatically mean that crime becomes a good thing."This isn't my point at all. Belief in a higher authority is a leash to theists pertaining to how low they can go. Atheists recognise no such leash. They have no positive equal, indeed they have their own positive reasons - stemming from the fundamentals of naturalism - to see themselves as the only authority and commit whatever crime they can get away with which will aid their ability to reproduce."There are still laws that are followed by millions of atheists all around the globe. We live our lived based on our morals and do wh we think is good for others AND ourselves. The fact that some atheists choose to live a life of crime is beside the point. There are many theists, perhaps significantly more, who follow a life of crime. This shows that believing in a higher supreme being does not automatically make you a good person, thus, proving that not believing in it, does not make you evil."Con should recognise we are not talking about crime or other tertiary factors. We are talking about fundamentals. That is, what are the fundamental conclusions of atheism? and are those conclusions more dangerous than the fundamental conclusions of theism?Con should recognise that theism is ingrained into society. Atheists living in Europe or America today are heavily influenced by for example Christian theism, but they take its implications for granted as cultural norms which will they assume will persist after the death of Christianity and into an atheistic culture, when they won't.As Christopher Hitchens said: "The west today is living in the afterglow of Christianity", this is very true. Few atheists today question what their grandparents and family taught them pertaining to morals. They don't recognise that those morals were ingrained over 1000+ years of Christian theism which teaches positive reasons to be good to your neighbor and not lie or steal etc. We don't see millions of atheists today behaving so badly, because of this afterglow of Christianity. Within a couple of generations of atheism those cultural norms will disappear and then a person will be left to look at the fundamental doctrine of the atheist: Survival of the fittest, reproduction is the only objective good, there is no higher authority. This doctrine can only lead one way, it provides positive reason to commit any crime that will benefit yourself. When things get tough and people really have to think about their actions, then the difference will become very apparent.Who would you prefer their finger over a nuclear launch button? A person who believes they will be judged, a person who has innate value for human life, a person who believes that suffering -even dying- but doing the right thing is more important than their personal advancement? Or a person who believes that personal advancement is the -only- objective good, that human beings are nothing more than machines which replicate themselves, and there is no authority higher than themselves??Forget the nuclear launch example. Ask yourself who you would prefer to be your neighbor in a time of severe unrest, famine or riots?Can CON provide a single fundamental assumption of atheism which would guard against this behavior?"If children are told that everything they do are being judged by someone else, a higher authority, then how are they then going to make mistakes that give them life lessons? If they have in their minds that they may only ever do good in their lives, in fear of what may happen to them otherwise, then what happens to the part of them that craves the evil side? "Well, this doesn't seem to be a moral objection. We teach children in a way which innately disinclines them to satisfy their "evil side". Its surely better than teaching children implicitly that reproduction is the only objective good and that there is no moral authority anywhere to ever answer to.We have seen since the time the Bible was removed from American schools in 1963. All forms of crime have increased constantly requiring more and more security measures and expenses to protect against it, which makes us all poorer, and less happy, which stimulates more crime, requires more police and CCTV, and its a spiral loop downwards.In 1962 the US had a population of 185m and 301'000 violent crimes.By 2012 the population had increased to 313m, little more than 1/3rd, but there were 1.2 million violent crimes. An increase approximately 400%. Then you must factor that there were far fewer police officers per capita in 1960 and no deterrents such as CCTV. The change has been stark.http://www.disastercenter.com...http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...Correlation is not causation, ofcourse. But correlation suggests that a specific relationship may be true. And I think in this case I have given good reason to believe it is.