I am always intrigued at the attention given to philosophical beliefs, and the dogmatic confidence some have in those beliefs. Many religious beliefs are examined, criticised, ridiculed & psychoanalyzed in this forum, but not much is given to atheism The title may put some off, but since the 'folly of religion' is a constant topic here on the forum, i thought it only fair to consider the folly of atheism
. 
I consider you exposed the fallacious argument for atheism against religion so I decided to also throw my hat into the ring from a
societal perspective.
My contribution is to share from a Baha’i author who raises the
social issue of the consequence
atheism likely has on crime. He is German and works as a lawyer in Germany. His name is Udo Schaefer and his book is entitled “the light shineth in darkness.” It is translated from German into English. I should note Baha’is believe in the divine origin of mainline religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
As a lead in the author notes how differently death is viewed now than in the past as follows:
“Death, that decisive change which is part of man’s life, the complete change into another sphere of existence, has no place or value in the thinking of modern man. Killing and being killed is an integral part of our society, to a large extent because of its continual demonstration on the cinema and television screens; natural death, on the other hand, is made taboo, the thought of death is repressed and the last act which is in store for everyone is banished into the loneliness of sick-rooms, and death (and thus life as well) has no meaning.
In the past, people’s attitude to death was different: life was considered from the perspective of death; the hour-glass was the reminder, the
memento mori, the constant and vivid representation of our transitoriness and the proof of how relative is earthly longing for happiness. We must remember that for Baha’is too, this is the right attitude for death, which terminates this earthly life, is at the same time, the gateway to true life into which we are born. Here man is suddenly faced with what he has done on earth, with the divine perfections he has achieved, in a word with what he is. Now it is that he has to account for his life on earth.
It is very fashionable today to question this responsibility by saying that man, being driven by his impulses and social pressures, has no freedom of action. This attitude has grave consequences for the individual who believes in it as well as for the society which treats him according to this belief. That man is, to a great extent, exposed to pressures and determined by them, is undeniable. But that man has the freedom of choice between good and evil is a fact which each one of us can experience every day and a truth proclaimed by all religions. And just as everyone is able to recognize God and His manifestations, See Baha’u’llah,
Gleanings, LXXV (such as Moses, Christ, and Mohammad) everyone also has the capacity to accomplish the will of God as it manifests itself in the divine law; ‘God will not burden any soul beyond its capacity.’
Quran 2:287. Man has the power both to do good and evil (‘Abdu’l-Baha,
Paris Talks, p. 60.) The idea that God, the law-giver, provides men with an absolute rule of conduct and imposes upon them the duty ‘to testify unto that which the Lord hath revealed, and follow that which He hath ordained in His mighty Book’, (Baha’u’llah, Words of Wisdom, Baha’i World Faith, p. 140) and that at the same time as creator, he has not endowed them with the capacity to fulfill this law, contradicts the concept of God’s justice and is absolutely unacceptable to religious thought. In this context, the statement: ‘Thou canst for thou shouldst’ (Immanuel Kant 1724-1804) is important. Therefore no one
has to steal, no one
has to commit adultery, no one
has to get drunk, and no one
has to smoke hashish. The theory which denies all human responsibility, on the assumption that man, bound by society’s restrictions and his own impulses has no freedom of action, is the logical consequence of atheism: ‘If God does not exist’, Dostoyevsky makes Ivan Karamazov say, ‘then everything is permitted; if there is no God, then everything is indifferent.’ Dostoyevsky means here that when man is his own law-giver and acknowledges no higher responsibility than the state courts, he can justify any crime.
