The only difference is belief... and belief is not black/white, it's a continuum. At what point (aside from their own admission) can you lump someone in a non-belief category versus the belief category? Even the believers don't believe it all; and the unbelievers often still believe some of it, partially. Which is why they're still there.
Now, admittedly, you are losing me.He's clearly "type a" with some stability problems, but I don't see how that changes the underlying morality of what is being done. He'd be type a if he believed or not; he'd treat his wife the same way (... from what I understand, possibly worse) if he believed. He is still acting within cultural norms without the religious beliefs - he simply doesn't believe. Why does belief change the morality of that?
To return to the beginning, I suggested that it was a good thing to contribute positively to others even if you don't necessarily believe everything that is being sold, and it's a bad thing to take purposefully take advantage of others (like a scavenger) even if you don't believe. Perhaps I worded myself poorly earlier.
You should qualify that comment. It's far too strong.We all use our society - it's not like men ask for wage parity with women for example, or race, or anything else. We do use the advantages we are given without remorse.
So you're saying Islam promotes as "moral behavior" the exploitation of others within the system in regards to behaving one way outwardly to gain face and then behaving however one wants when one is alone? That's part of the actual tenets of the faith?And that's what he's doing - that's what nearly all men in his religion do. The only question is if belief would "moralise" his actions... that is if the religion makes that moral while the cultural following makes it immoral.