, logical basis is that if I go around punching people in the head I increase my chances of getting punched in the head right back.
Non aggression Principle NaP
That's not a valid argument for the NAP. You're leaning on the statistical probability that eventually you'll be punched back as a reason to justify an absolute principle. 1) This fallaciously assumes targets of punches aren't pacifists. 2) It fallaciously assumes targets of punches are capable of harming the aggressor. 3) It fallaciously assumes that an aggressor punches people without forethought or planning. All this, among other problems. The fact is, when you take the absolute objective source of morality out of the equation, then any argument that can be made against a given act can be reciprocated for the opposite.
Don't hit an old lady because why? Why not hit an old lady? If you hit her you'll feel bad. If you hit her you'll feel good. If you hit her, she may be hurt. Hurting her may be the desired result. If she is hurt she may not help you. If she gets hurt, you can take whatever wealth she has on her person. Etc. and so forth.
A world without God is a world without morality. So it has been throughout all of human history. God is the source and maintainer of existence. Reality itself is subject to God. Reason and morality are reliant on God because the God is built into the fabric of reality. Rejection of God is a rejection of morality, reason, and ultimately reality.
Religion is the system of beliefs that inform one's values. Philosophy is the reasoning between one's religious beliefs and one's values. Everyone has values. Everyone has a philosophy. Everyone has a religion, whether shared or unique. Even if it is unique to themselves, even if it is inconsistent and arbitrary as an atheist's religion must inherently be, everyone has a religion.
The NAP was created as a way for atheists to give themselves an excuse for mimicking the moral principles of Christianity without crediting Christianity. Without God, values are inherently absolutely subjective, relativistic, and arbitrary. Atheists are compelled to attack and struggle to distance themselves from Christianity because if any acknowledgement of virtue is given to Christianity, it highlights the arbitrary nature of atheism. If Christianity has virtue, then what does it matter whether or not an atheist is a Christian or not?
It is an existential Truth that if we acknowledge the existence of God, God understood to be the source and maintainer of existence, the arbiter of reality, all powerful, all knowing, ever present in all places in all times - If we acknowledge God as thus, then it is self evident that everything matters. Every thought and every act, everything that exists, it all matters and all has purpose.
Without God, nothing matters. If all of existence is nothing more than material matter and energy with no will or purpose behind it, then every event is inevitable and predestined and there is no right or wrong, there is no better or worse, and there is no reason, morality, or rational purpose for values. This is why the conclusion of atheism is nihilism. This is why the conclusion of atheism is oblivion-ism.
A Christian embraces existence as it is, doing their best to behave consistently with God's laws for moral behavior. God instructs us to do our best in all things. God instructs us to not be aggressors, but to treat others as we would want to be treated. To love God and love each other.
The NAP has no foundation in rational thought aside from an ambiguous attempt to behave as God wills us to behave, without acknowledging God. For an atheist, the NAP only holds value from thought to thought. Adherence is arbitrary. One moment it holds value, then when the atheist decides otherwise, it doesn't. And no fundamental principle is violated when the NAP is broken as any number of other arbitrary values can take its place in the atheist mind. Survival of the fittest, hedonism, for the greater good, etc. etc. etc.
For an atheist, morality is a pantomime at best, and an obstruction at worst. For a Christian morality is absolute, timeless, objective, and an existential Truth.
Consider your position in existence. Is rejecting God worth whatever illusion of pride may be gained from doing so? Seek a better life. Embrace existence. Acknowledge and love God. Live righteously.
BTW, "punching" and "punching back" doesn't have to be taken literally (i.e. retribution doesn't have to be direct).
I understand - about punching also being metaphorical. The objections to the example likewise work metaphorically. It doesn't matter what the method of aggression is. If the target is a pacifist, refuses to react to aggression, then the method of attack is irrelevant in that sense. If the target is incapable of causing notable harm to an attacker, the method of attack is irrelevant. If the attacker isn't using any forethought or planning, then the method of attack is irrelevant, in context. It still stands true that there is no inherent rational reason for adherence to the NAP without God.
I'm not the one who incurs offense for your denial of God. What I am offended by are the constant attacks against Christians by atheists, and the undermining of our society. Atheists in general have caused a degenerate regression in the West and continue the assault regardless of how obviously harmful the effects of their actions are. This fight is becoming the motive for a Christian resurgence. Even as atheists lead the charge for every reprobate cause under the sun, Christianity is galvanizing for pushback. This conversation is a sample of that battlefield.
he said that most atheists substitute religion with the state (i.e. big government). I know a few other atheists and that generalization seems pretty accurate.