Hm, it does.
A -> B, therefore ~B -> ~A.
It says “A person who is immoral is more likely to be irreligious.”
Urban Ranger, yeah, you got me as well as roberliguori, you pedant. But you know what we mean. And now I have to pedant right back at you.
What you have is the same implication re-arranged into “Not moral implies not religious”. What we have not got is “Not religious implies X” for any value of X. So ner ner ner 
Ranger and Eve: robert and cajela are correct.
“A -> B, therefore ~B -> ~A” is a logical fallacy.
Apologies, I should clarify:
The following argument is valid (ie. it is not a fallacy as I stated above):
A->B
~B
Therefore ~A.
However, in the case under discussion, ~B is not the second line. The statement was that If you are religious (A) then you have good morals (B). Eve asked “so if you are not religious (ie. ~A), does this imply you have not good morals?”
No, it doesn’t. This argument is a logical fallacy, called Denial of the Antecedent:
A->B
~A
Therefore ~B.
…since B might have other causes than A.
Oh, stop yer nitpicking, Beagledave. If you have something of substance to say on the actual topic of the OP, say it.
Not at all. As others explained with logic, your inference is a fallacy.
Way I see it, “deeply religious” is a subset of “holds strongly to a code of morals.” “Passionately humanist,” “strongly pacifistic,” and “staunchly communist-anarchist” are other subsets of “holds strongly to a code of morals.”
Someone may be not deeply religious, but may still belong to the set of folks who hold strongly to a code of morals: they may be passionately humanist, strongly pacifistic, staunchly communist-anarchist, etc.
Daniel
Someone agreed with me: today’s NY Times has a letter reading, " . . . I object to the implied equation between religion and morality. It would be equally incomprehensible if convinced atheists starved their children. Religious conviction is no guarantor of moral or kind behavior, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of history knows."
And SentientMeat, if you’re gonna start pulling math on me, I’m going to have to crawl under my desk and hum loudly to myself.
Heh heh, sorry Eve!
It is not math, but logic: Though it might look tricky at first glance, it is simply analysing the argument to establish precisely what a statement means, and further what it implies.
An argument is valid if it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false in a world in which the premises all were true.
An argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are all true.
In this case, the premise “if you are religious then you have good morals” might very well not be true. However, even if it was, then this would still not imply that irreligious people had bad morals.
(I can hum a mean harmony if there’s room under there?)
I’m an atheist and I wasn’t insulted. I save my umbrage for explicit comments like those of Bush pers et fils and Sen. Liberman that atheists are unpatriotic and immoral. With the distinct pro-theist bias in government these days, we don’t need to infer prejudice from innocuous comments.
Well thanks for that follow up a day after my point.
If Eve wants to say that she didn’t mean what she initially posted…fine with me. She initially posted in this thread that the second quote (along with the first) implied that atheists treat children worse than believers. I asked where she got that notion from the second quote…a fair question if she wants feedback on her opinion. She went round and round saying that she didn’t say that…whatever.
A simple “I misspoke” in the OP would have been tidy and sufficient, and cleared the confusion.
To the other parts of the OP…I think cajella and others have hit the mark with regards to the notion of logical fallacies.
The fallacy is even greater with regards to the second quote…which is LESS of a general commentary about religion in society than the first quote. Again the idea that one is serioulsy offended by a grieving widower remarking on the attributes he admired in his wife…just seems a bit much.
This is not to say that there is NOT any type of faith based bias in politics or political coverage by the media…but that the inferences drawn in these examples seem quite weak.
That’s alright, Gobear—your job is to wildly explode at the slightest hint of anti-gay sentiment; I can handle the wild exploding at any hint of anti-atheist sentiment.
It’s clear to me that athiests have no skills in logic. 
Heh. Just kidding.
While I agree that logically parsing the sentence does not yield the conclusion that the OP complains of, I’m not so sure there isn’t a germ of truth in what she says. People communicate by inference rather than by direct logical parsing.
“If he doesn’t know the Seventh Commandment, I’m glad he’s not my accountant!”
There are any number of inferences that may be drawn from the sentence above. I could merely be noting that someone unfamiliar with the Ten Commandments is unlikely to be well-educated, and such a person is not someone I wish to entrust with my money.
But since the Seventh Commandment is (in the Catholic tradition, anyway) “Thou shalt not steal,” it’s also a fair inference that I’m suggesting someone unfamiliar with the commandment is more likely to steal, and it is for that reason I’d eschew his services as an accountant.
The quotes the OP complains about certainly support the inference that religious people are less likely to starve children. But that begs the question - less likely than whom? Well, irreligious people certainly come to mind.
This is not a conclusion imposed by logic, but it’s not an unreasonable inference either.
That said, I think that if it’s a slight, it’s a tiny slight in the overall scheme of things.
- Rick
I apologize if my posting history has led you, or anyone else, to believe that I “wildly explode” as a matter of course at homophobic comments. In any event, I’m leaving the homophobia fighting to others. Nothing I say or do is going to dissuade gay haters from hating gays, so there’s not a lot of point in fighting them anymore. The GOP apparently thinks preventing gay marriage is far more important to our nation than fighting terrorism, the mess in Iraq, or the flagging economy, since they are making gay marriage the leading issue of their 2004 platform.
Anyway, enough of that.
There’s just no room for freedom of conscience in America. The Christian right-wingers who run this country do not believe in democracy or pluralism, as demonstrated by their frequently repeated assertion that the Constitution does not guarantee freedom from religion. To them, the First Amendment is a dead letter that will not be allowed to block their dream of transforming America into a fundamentalist theocracy. They will convert us or crush us–leaving us alone is not an option.
Oh, for Ned’s sake, Gobear, lighten up—I was teasing you!
Bricker, I don’t think the implication is that religious people are less likely to starve children; I think the implication is that deeply religious people are less likely to starve children.
That’s a very important distinction, IMHO, for the reasons I’ve given above. I’d expect deeply religious people to behave in some ways better than nominally religious people, just like I’d expect people deeply committed to humanism to behave in some ways better than people who are humanist in name only.
Daniel
Well, I don’t seem to be saying anything right, so I’ll go back to lurking.
I, for one, would pay to see you “wildly explode” gobear .
Do you really think the right wingers run this country?
To the OP, religious doesn’t always have to mean Chrsitianity you know.
and thanks, Eve , I’ve always admired you, even though you are a godless heathen who is on the path to hell!
(teasing here also).
You could always seduce them.
Does anyone else’s local news anchors say sometimes at the end of a story “We’ll be praying>”
?
Its like, okay, good for you!
Like we should all pray for the people in question?
Oh, please tell me you’re joking—where do you live, Vatican City?
—Eve (who already has her dress picked out for hell: red satin)