"I am certain murders, rapes, child molestation is increasing as a result in the growth of non-belief."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latime ... f_amp=true
That aside, here's a thing I posted elsewhere in an attempt to show the superficiality of repentance and the impossibility of proving it to be genuine. In other words, it's too easy merely to ask for forgiveness, and even mean it; this is why belief in god doesn't necessarily deter criminal acts. The challenge is to abstain from criminal activity for 'the right reasons' in a godless universe.
In fact, a good argument could be made that religion makes people kinda loopy, for two reasons; a constant state of paranoia (that a god is watching you), and the prohibition of otherwise natural behaviors. Think the religious bans on promiscuity, flogging the dolphin (every sperm is sacred
), and the demand for celibacy in certain circumstances (ah, now the pedo priests are no longer a mystery), the standardization of monogamous pairing, and the use of drugs.
Also, is there a correlation between poverty/scarcity and the crimes you mention? I'd think so. In less developed countries, it's obvious. In first world countries, it's a blue collar crime atmosphere almost exclusively.
Wait I'm not gonna turn this into another post criticizing capitalism/consumerism even though that's where it would inevitably lead.... so here's that thing about honesty in belief:
What is the cognitive state of 'honesty' like? I mean what is a being-honest behavior like? Do we observe honesty in behavior, or is it a description of a kind of mental state? Let's say it's that feeling u get when you know you aren't lying. But then there's this problem; lying can mean 'not telling the truth' as well as 'not really meaning it.'
By what criteria does a Christian know he 'doesn't really mean it'? He certainly knows when he's lying in the first sense, but what about the second? Say he speaks the words 'i believe in and love god'. How would he know he really meant that? He would know if he were lying in the first sense. That would be quite easy to do. But for the second sense, there is nothing against which to test the veracity of that honesty-state. He simply says it, and then says he 'meant it'. Again, where and what is this 'meant-ness'? Does he DO this behavior, or is it just a thought? Can he do something that would demonstrate he was lying, to an observer? We know he could demonstrate that he was lying in the first sense by acting in a way that contradicted his claims; says the money is in the box, but goes to the drawer to get it.
I don't want to make this exercise in existential phenomenology too complicated so I'll just go for the throat. The basis of Christian belief is entirely transparent and would require absolutely no effort at all on the part of the believer to demonstrate, either to himself or 'god'. Honesty in asking for forgiveness, and believing in god, is perfectly opaque. Consider this; I can be honest when I say 'i believe in god' solely on the grounds that I'm not able to prove god doesn't exist. That's all it takes... and how easy is that to do and be genuinely honest? There's nuthin to it
Accordingly, I could kill a million babies and a second before I die, say the words in my head 'i believe in and love god', and God would not be able to know if I were lying by virtue of the lack of veracity and demonstration of the behavior of belief itself.... the behavior, the action, of believing.
If a fellow can't even know himself the difference between such a state of honesty and dishonesty, neither can god. Remember, when the criminal is brought to his knees in tears in the prison church after having been sentenced to life, and, having lost everything, remembers that he can't prove god doesn't exist.... his brokenness is an authentic state. He's not pretending here, not faking a thing. Belief in god is his last resort, and he declares it in all honesty. He hopes god does exist, whereas before perhaps he hoped not. Now, who is to say this is not a genuine belief in god? And look how easy it is to do! By this fact alone, it cannot count for much... which is one of the reasons why Christianity is so fuckin corny. Belief is too easy... to easy to have honestly under the proper circumstances.
One's 'deeds' are what hold currency... but how and with whom are deeds mediated? In human intercourse. One certainly can't 'do for god' or 'with god', because he's entirely absent. Rather one does what one believes god would want him to do, with, to, and for other people.
As Feuerbach once kinda put it; there is absolutely no possibility of a connection between god and man, and everything a man would ever be able to do to express his love and honesty - that by Christian dictation would give man his salvation - would involve only men, as men, with men.
'god' is not only the vaguest of concepts, but also completely unnecessary as an intermediate between men and their affairs. So much so that by virtue of 'god's' disingenuousness, he ought to be ignored even if he did exist.