I did think my post indicated that worshipping false gods or idols was considered worse than atheism. But still:
Fact is I was raised baptist, my father studied at a seminary, I have been around a lot of christians. I am not speculating, I am working from first hand experience and observation.
And I have known plenty of christians who feel that you just cannot be a good person unless you are right with jesus. Yet, for all the high moral tone, many of the worst people in the world are christians, and faith does nothing to improve them. In fact, I would say that of two equally bad people, the believer would be the worse because he has the inside track to morality as decreed by god and yet evades it or even just rejects it.
In the end, jesus has nothing practical to offer, just some airy-fairy nonsense about how there is some kind of “hereafter” and that it is somehow related to here-and-now. There is no moral code, because it does not matter to believers, it is even easier for them to get around it and be skanks. Atheists, at least, have to live with themselves and what they have done.
This is true. We are moral for no other reason than because we choose to be, something Christians can’t seem to wrap their minds around.
I have also always found Christianity’s “get out of jail free” nonsense ridiculously convenient, not to mention somewhat comical. Commit any evil you wish to, as often as you like, and as long as you repent before you kick, you’re all good. :rolleyes:
(bolding mine)
Really?! I need to start ‘cruising’ the churches more on my Harley (right about ‘end-of-meetin’ time) and see if I can’t ‘save’ some of them [del]horny[/del] corrupted ladies. 
Half of all Christian men addicted to pornography?
I think they are re-defining the word “addicted” to mean merely “looking at it now and then.” Very, very few men are truly addicted, whereas a great many indulge in the occasional perusal of the form.
I don’t doubt that there are many Christians who are hypocrites (and worse than hypocrites in a way as they genuinely expect others to meet a standard higher than the one they set for themselves). I’ve met them and both the media and history are replete with examples.
Lots of other folks are hypocrites too. Perhaps atheists are less so.
But there is a moral code to be followed by Christians; we are expected to act with love towards others. Some of us try and some of us (I don’t claim to be one of them but I am trying) succeed. I’ve known people who have devoted their lives ot helping the poor and oppressed, people who give all the time and money they can spare and they are devout Christians.
I don’t really think nonbelievers gain anything other than self-approbation from ignoring or distorting those things, or dismissing those who do try to follow the greatest law as “not real Christians.”.
I think you give unbelievers too much credit, or whatever, for giving any thought to what a “real” christian is. There are Coptics and Anglicans and Catholics and Methodists and Quakers and Lutherans and Branch Davidians and even perhaps Mormons. All of those call themselves christians and it seems as though none of them quite agree exactly on what a proper christian is. In fact, I would venture that the two people sitting beside each other in the pew in the Little Red Church on the Corner do not agree to the letter on the exact definition of a “christian”,
As far as I can see, there are something like a billion christians on this marble, which amounts to a billion versions of what it means to be one. Most likely, eight or nine hundred million, or more, of those are tolerable, tolerant folk, but there is a pretty small minority who are quite obnoxious and vile.
Interestingly, it appears, to me at least, that one can usually mark the slider on the tolerable->vile scale parallel to the slider on the scale of indifference->devotion: the stronger a person’s professed faith, the more likely they are to be a jerk about it, or even use their religion to detestable ends (Torquemada was not a just-Sunday-mass kind of believer). And it certainly does vary, but the anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that more religions tends to make one a suckier person, less religion tends to make one a decent neighbor.
TL;DR: from the perspective of a non-believer, religion itself looks a lot like a net negative influence.
When you mention “the stronger a person’s professed faith,” do you mean how strong their faith (the faith they profess) is, or how strongly they profess it?
If the former, how would you, as an outsider, know how strongly they hold their faith? How do you measure something like this?
I admit I’m not quite clear on what your point is, but accepting your numbers for “tolerable” Christians versus “vile” ones, do you think that the numbers of Good People/Bad People are any different from any other group of people you can identify?
As you imply, it would be extremely difficult to measure actual strength of faith, but we can observe how strongly it is professed, and that really does seem to be what matters.
My point here is clear and basically has nothing to do with moral demographics: religion (take your pick, there may be an exception or two) touts itself as bearing he standard in the fight against evil, yet, from the perspective of a non-believer (or believer-in-something-else), it appears to be pursuing an agenda (subject to change) at any cost. And it appears to be preying on some emotional weakness or conditioning of its followers to help promote its agenda. Given that no known religion is demonstrably better than any other randomly chosen religion (meaning its agenda cannot be but morally neutral), these qualities point toward religion itself being a force for “evil” (the opposite of what it claims).
For You, I don’t understand why how strongly a person professes faith matters more than how strongly a person holds that faith (for purposes of predicting vileness as I understand it). Isn’t it just as likely that a person who simply wishes to perform an unjust act will justify it with religion, and for that reason profess faith more strongly?
I’m sorry, this is a bit of a hijack but I am still confused by your statements. Are you explaining the process by which a person who does not believe may conclude that religion is the cause of evil behavior?
Christianity as typically practiced is quite evil and destructive. Naturally, the more strongly someone believes in it the worse they are going to act. You might as well ask why someone would assume that a racist or fascist is more likely to do bad things than someone who is neither; people who believe evil things are more prone to committing evil acts, for obvious reasons. And the more religious people & places are, the more prone they are to antisocial behavior.
Even the writer of the article you linked to doesn’t say this study proves that religion is evil or that Christians are more prone to committing evil acts; he says it shows that religiosity (as defined in the study) does not prevent “dysfunctionality”:
*For this study’s purpose, “dysfunctionality” is defined by such indicators of poor societal health as homicide, suicide, low life expectancy, STD infection, abortion, early pregnancy, and high childhood mortality (under five-years old). Religiosity is measured by biblical literalism, frequency of prayer and service attendance, as well as absolute belief in a creator in terms of ardency, conservatism, and activities. *While I have no information on the reliability of this study (and the “redrawn” graphs are too smudgy on my screen to even know the statistical correlation), even assuming that the study is reliable, the correlation significant, the most you can conclude is that at least prosperous countries that are more religious as defined here do not have lower rates of homicide, suicide, early death, STDs, abortion, teen pregnancy, and deaths of young children.
The study provides no information as to who is committing or failing to prevent the “dysfunctions” and in no way supports your conclusion that being a Christian makes one do evil things. Not even close.
Also, you are aware that not all Christians take the bible literally or deny that evolution is true. Since that is part of the definition used in the study (and those kinds of beliefs may well correlate with lots of other things like poor education and poverty) I see no evidence that the study even supports the author’s conclusion.
Of course not; that’s not the kind of language used in scholarly articles. And even doing a study on the subject is daring enough without using language like that; there are very few studies on the moral effects of religion, probable because the few that are done have always shown religion to be a moral detriment, and admitting even the possibility that religion is bad for morality is a major taboo in our culture. We’re all supposed to ignore the elephant in the living room, the blatant evil that is associated with religion.
What studies have proven that religion is a moral detriment?
Well, you either misunderstand or wish to deflect. An axe is not the cause of a tree falling any more than religion is the cause of any kind of behavior. What causes people to be “good” or “evil” is kind of mysterious, just as what causes one horse to buck and another to happily trot. But like the axe, religion is a tool, and its design facilitates the manipulation of its adherents by its clerics. It does not cause bad behavior, but it provides a sort of disease vector that helps bad behavior spread. And, with possible exceptions, religion does not serve as a particularly good means to help spread “good” behavior.
I should note that “good” and “evil” are more than a teensy bit subjective: what is ok here is downright nasty over there, and there is no ISO morality scale that works globally (or universally). When I attempt to discover an objective “evil”, only one factor ever emerges as a constant: power over others. Without power (physical, social, intellectual or emotional), there can simply be no “evil” – that is, you can imagine, describe, plan despicable actions, but without the power to act or compel action, it is just a notion. By this measure, I perceive religion as inherently “evil” because it offers a structural foundation for power. And that is where the professed faithful come into play: they seem to be making an effort to abuse the tool that is religion, they seem, to me at least, to be reaching for power.