Religion, at its core, teaches ethics and a "proper" way to live.
Some can, some do, and some don't, but it's quite certainly not a requirement.
Religion promotes loyalty and stalwartness.
I'll grant that. Some even go so far as to threaten direct bodily harm if you don't stay loyal. Others may simply resort to the "You're gonna get it after you're dead" threat, or the threat of being a social outcast. That's a rather strict and harsh definition of "loyalty." Threaten loyalty, don't earn it.
Even if they don't follow your set of rules, you know that someone else who is religious follows a set of rules.
Follows
a set of rules. Yes, assuming it suits them at the time. It's quite easy to see religious people easily leave those rules behind on a whim.
"Then they aren't truly religious," is what I tend to see in response.
That being the case, then it evidently
isn't easy to "know" that that person is really following that set of rules which you think they are.
It's harder to figure out an "atheist" because, by definition, they disregard rules.
Just as the Christian doesn't follow the rules laid down by a pride of lions, or how a Westerner doesn't follow the rules of an isolated jungle tribe. They don't follow
some rules, therefore "they disregard rules?"
And I'm not sure of this definition of "atheist" which says that they disregard rules.
A-theist. Not theist.
Not much to the definition, really. "Disregards rules" isn't really in there...at all.
Maybe I disregard various religions' rules as a result of not following any religion, but that still doesn't make it "by definition." I
know that many believers do not follow some rules, even their own religion's rules. So can we therefore say that they also disregard rules, "by definition?" Either path makes as much sense as the other, which is to say, very little.
It's the same thing as trusting say, an employee with 20 years of experience or a new college grad. The college grad might be more up to date on certain things, but if the employee has the experience and professionalism, you'd be more trusting of the older employee to see things to the end, even if their methods are more "outdated".
This must be why
all Christian sects have gotten along perfectly well for so very many centuries, because they're so trusting of one another.
This post shows a far too prevalent viewpoint that's out there - the assumption, or even
knowledge, that a non-believer is
automatically a rule-breaker, a troublemaker, and untrustworthy. Implicit in there is that such a person is incapable of behaving rationally or ethically, because they "by definition" disregard rules, as if it is in their basic nature, and that they can do no differently. (Interestingly, this idea
should find itself sitting comfortably next to the teachings of some religions which beat on people constantly that they were
born "sinners," that they'd done something wrong, by virtue of simply existing. "Oh, but we have the only way to make you better, you contemptible little thing you. Just stay loyal to us, and we'll help. Otherwise, definite, eternal torture and/or an empty and wicked life awaits you. This is not intended as a threat." It
should find itself sitting comfortably with those teachings, but oddly enough, one is viewed as a terrible vice, the other, a divine blessing.)