And some do require intervention, no?

Why?

Obi. I usually agree with you on most about everything you say because i know that you get it, but i have to disagree with your assertion that less religious people are less empathetic. In fact, i could argue that atheists might actually be more empathetic and carry themselves with more integrity than some pastors who are getting drunk, driving recklessly and killing people on the road only to try and weasel their way out of their responsibility. If that were me, i would man up and face my consequences as a man, because i have empathy and i take responsibility for my actions, good or bad.

I happen to have a lot of atheist friends in the US who are very philanthropic. Most are highly educated and well off financially, and they are the most caring people in this world. Whenever something bad happens in Kenya, they are the first ones to call and ask how and if they can help. Some visit Africa every year and really try to uplift people' s standards of living. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, possibly the richest men in the world are both atheists and both happen to be the biggest philanthropists around. The thing about atheists is that we understand that we might be more privileged than most, but in my experience with my atheist friends, i find that we are more generous and empathetic than most people realize. We get castigated because of our stand against religions and gods, but if people were to really see past those issues, most would be surprised to find out that all we as atheists ever want is a better world for everybody.

The mean and less empathetic people you refer to are usually conservative evangelicals from the bible belt section of the US. If you look at the friendliest and most open minded people in the US, they are usually found on the Coasts and Northern part of the country. This is also where most atheists are located. The less empathetic people who still want the racist confederate flags to fly in their states are usually the religious conservatives of the south. Those are the ones you should be worried about when it comes to lack of empathy for humanity. Not the educated atheists.

First of all,I am not encouraging or advocating for anyone to break the law or excuse the actions and views of others.

If I were to entertain the thought that all atheists want a better world for everybody, you would be incapable of defining that 'better' world and how education or atheism leads one to it.

What is wrong with driving recklessly?
What is wrong with being apathetic?
What is wrong with killing people?
What is wrong with getting drunk?
What is wrong with being mean?
What is wrong with slavery?
What is wrong?

These are things taken at face value but by the same standards you approach theists they should be considered stupid and imaginary. You cannot speak on the views and actions of all atheists. The same hypocrisy that you would want to attribute to theists would only be more emboldened in atheism.

I agree. You've paraphrased what West Churchman called the 'Challenge to reason'. He argues that Leibniz's 'monadism' calls for a God who knows the whole universe; but now when God is no longer necessary, reason and science must show that it knows the whole universe to be able to speak of 'Good', 'better', or 'best'.

You've stated that God is an abstract concept to explain and modify human experience. Reason and science has not shown God doesn't exist,is no longer necessary and is bound by reason and science. These are propositions.Another proposition is that reason and science can define 'good','better' or 'best' or even justify the 'need' to define them. In place of the worship of God,we have worship of abstracts concepts that exalts man and nature. As I said, this is old religion.

'Abstract concepts' isn't equal to religion. Language is based on abstract concepts yet language isn't necessarily religion. The computer program you're using is made of abstract concepts.

Again, 'old religion' is an abstract concept.

Science has come up with abstract concepts that don't have God as a necessary condition for existence - the inflationary expansion of the universe and the big bang theory for example. Now, terms like 'good' or 'better' imply comparison and for one to compare the elements of any set he/ she must know of all the elements of a certain set. Hence we are looking at how abstract concepts compare and the necessary conditions they must meet in order to be useful for personal experience.

Science can offer theories but it hasn't offered proof that God doesn't exist. This is also a proposition that God can be bound by science. Similarly, like you, science hasn't shown it knows all of the elements and conditions necessary to have and define terms such as 'good' or 'better'.

I never said abstract concepts are equal to religion. I also never said God is an abstract concept. This is what you are proposing. I only said these concepts are part of old religion by inadequately trying to explaining and modifying human experience where man's own understanding and nature replaces God. We know this is a part of religion.

Sometimes around xmas i watched a doc on the scientific explanation about the miracles that happened in Egypt with Moses. There was some sense in it.
Like why the firstborns died ? Answer Food poisoning.

Or stuff like Lot and the wife who turned into a salt statue !

Science doesn't know everything.If anything it knows it knows very little about our existence.

Science doesn't know if God exists.

Yet you are claiming God is an abstract concept.