A less selfish Pascal's wager

[Jac3510]

And philosoraptor, the standard argument is not that atheists cannot be moral.

Actually, yes it is.  Myself (and I'm sure others here) get it from a lot of so-called Christians (and sometimes people of other faiths).  But then again, it's not as if that many Christians are all that familiar with the Bible to know what it says about morality-they just assume those without a belief in God couldn't possibly have a system of morals.  I think you'd be surprised how many atheists have more knowledge of the Bible than your average Christian.  Either way, it's still a very common assumption that atheists can't be moral because they don't believe in God.

No, it isn't. It may be the popular argument you keep getting, but just because a lot of people repeat it doesn't make it the standard. The standard is that which as been established by the philosophical community. Given its popularity in the literature, both professional and popular, there is no excuse for anyone not to be familiar with it who has claimed to study the issue at all.

Further, I think you shouldn't assume what I would or would not be surprised by. It seems to me that rather than focusing on what uneducated (well intentioned or not) Christians argue, you should focus on the strongest form of the position as it is properly advocated. In other words, the standard argument, at minimum.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've always thought that with all the gods roaming around, there is more likely to be a huge "heavenly" battle between the gods to see who gets to torture us Heathens.  It could be pretty spectacular, if you think about it.  Zeus and the Christian God, toe to toe, a real "rumble in the sky" kind of smackdown.  I figure I'll be a "spirit" by then, right, so I'll just slip out the side universe and get lost among the stars.

It appears that Thor took Jesus in the first round:

[Kylyssa]

It seems to me that rather than focusing on what uneducated (well intentioned or not) Christians argue, you should focus on the strongest form of the position as it is properly advocated. In other words, the standard argument, at minimum.

Why would we focus on the argument we almost never hear as opposed to the one we hear day in and day out?  It may be important what Christian philosophers think but it's more important to me what the Christians we encounter on a regular basis may think.  What you argue about behind the doors of seminary has little impact on the people we associate with in real life.

Perhaps no educated, idealized Christian would ever suggest that atheists are immoral but many of the average Christians we encounter do.

[pckizer]

And philosoraptor, the standard argument is not that atheists cannot be moral.

Actually, yes it is.

No, it isn't. It may be the popular argument you keep getting, but just because a lot of people repeat it doesn't make it the standard.

Actually, that's exactly what it means as "popular" is largely taken as synonymous with "accepted as normal or average", though it also points out that we might be talking from different dictionaries.

In merely discussing what some of us encounter in our normal interactions with theists (which, granted, does explicitly limit our sample to the subset of them we interact with or read/see in some form of media) the normal/usual/"standard" argument we get a preponderance of the time is that atheists cannot be moral.

The standard is that which as been established by the philosophical community. Given its popularity in the literature, both professional and popular, there is no excuse for anyone not to be familiar with it who has claimed to study the issue at all.

Further, I think you shouldn't assume what I would or would not be surprised by. It seems to me that rather than focusing on what uneducated (well intentioned or not) Christians argue, you should focus on the strongest form of the position as it is properly advocated. In other words, the standard argument, at minimum.

As philosoraptor points out, many atheists are extremely well versed in both the details of the various holy books as well as philosophy and other fields.  I think you'll need to expound upon your claim of what is standard as it looks like it's being assumed in two different ways just in posts in this thread.

From reading philosophy, the standard definitions of morality are extremely relative to the society and the school of thought of the philosopher so you'll need to be more explicit first whether you're talking from a descriptive or normative sense, and then onto whether you take a simple Aristotelianism view, ethical relativist viewpoint, consequentialist or otherwise.  Each school posits their own standard forms of morality that differ greatly in the details and universality of the claims.

As for the verse in Romans you alluded to earlier, one of the common (I'll use that word rather than "standard") interpretations I've heard (sometimes in the same train of thought as the "atheists have no morality" statements) making use of it applied to atheists and other non-christians is the assumption that though we reject the claims of a deific morality we still have some level of morality due to us in some fuzzy way feeling or knowing it anyway since it is the universal standard set forth by a deity that we just cannot escape.  The common claim there is that their deity set a "standard" for morality that our non-theist stumbling around in the world cannot help but recognize even if we reject the source.


Or, to inject a but of internet-based levity:  The problem with standards is that there are too many to choose from. [Original author unknown]

[The Magic Pudding]

the standard argument

I like many of Jac3510's posts, but to whom is this standard argument a standard?

[Jac3510]

Why would we focus on the argument we almost never hear as opposed to the one we hear day in and day out?  It may be important what Christian philosophers think but it's more important to me what the Christians we encounter on a regular basis may think.  What you argue about behind the doors of seminary has little impact on the people we associate with in real life.

Perhaps no educated, idealized Christian would ever suggest that atheists are immoral but many of the average Christians we encounter do.

Why do atheists bother to read/study the Bible and other holy books? I would think that it is because you want to understand, to one degree or another, what those faiths teach. Sadly, you often have a deeper desire to understand a religion than its own adherents do. In any case, how many times have you corrected a religious person on what their own book actually teaches? I'm sure you have done it before and will do it in the future. I say, as a Christian, bravo. Do it, and do it all the more, because uneducated Christians don't do the church any favors; if they can be schooled by an unbeliever, it only serves to show them how much deeper they should go in their own faith.

So why should you bother with an argument you don't usually hear? For precisely the same reason that you rightly correct them on other issues. When a Christian argues that atheists can't be moral, you can certainly argue with them and try to demonstrate that you can be just as moral as they. Yet in the process, you are only validating a position that shouldn't be validated. Better would be to point to Christian philosophers who openly reject the argument. Tell them that they are on the wrong side not only of modern Christian scholarship, but of Christian scholarship historically.

Finally, the standard argument is not one held behind closed doors in seminaries. As I've already said, this is a standard argument that no one disagrees with. Our job is to popularlize it so that those outside of the academy can get it right, too. In any case, I know of absolutely no Christian philosopher or theologian who argues that atheists cannot be moral. Literally every single one of them, to a man, expressly rejects the position as absurd and anti-biblical.

Actually, that's exactly what it means as "popular" is largely taken as synonymous with "accepted as normal or average", though it also points out that we might be talking from different dictionaries.

In merely discussing what some of us encounter in our normal interactions with theists (which, granted, does explicitly limit our sample to the subset of them we interact with or read/see in some form of media) the normal/usual/"standard" argument we get a preponderance of the time is that atheists cannot be moral.

Yes, "standard" can mean "popular." I wasn't using it that way. I make it a point of choosing my language carefully. In my reply, I took the time to point out that I was using it in its technical sense.

I'm just trying to help everyone, you and me. Rather than justifying the popular argument about morality by arguing with them on its merits, point out that they are incorrect and have misunderstood their own argument. You can use any one of a million highly respected Christian theologians, apologists, and philosophers to prove your point. You "win the argument," and I have one less Christian making bad arguments to worry about.

As philosoraptor points out, many atheists are extremely well versed in both the details of the various holy books as well as philosophy and other fields.  I think you'll need to expound upon your claim of what is standard as it looks like it's being assumed in two different ways just in posts in this thread.

From reading philosophy, the standard definitions of morality are extremely relative to the society and the school of thought of the philosopher so you'll need to be more explicit first whether you're talking from a descriptive or normative sense, and then onto whether you take a simple Aristotelianism view, ethical relativist viewpoint, consequentialist or otherwise.  Each school posits their own standard forms of morality that differ greatly in the details and universality of the claims.

As for the verse in Romans you alluded to earlier, one of the common (I'll use that word rather than "standard") interpretations I've heard (sometimes in the same train of thought as the "atheists have no morality" statements) making use of it applied to atheists and other non-christians is the assumption that though we reject the claims of a deific morality we still have some level of morality due to us in some fuzzy way feeling or knowing it anyway since it is the universal standard set forth by a deity that we just cannot escape.  The common claim there is that their deity set a "standard" for morality that our non-theist stumbling around in the world cannot help but recognize even if we reject the source.

Or, to inject a but of internet-based levity:  The problem with standards is that there are too many to choose from. [Original author unknown]

There is no standard view of morality generally. As you note, there are consequentialists, deontologists, aretaics (like myself), and within those a host of subsets for each. There are distinctions between theoretical, practical, and moral reasoning that must be considered (which includes distinctions such as expressivims, internalism, and many others) as well as the interrelation between each; no two philosophers agree on any of these, much less how all of them work together.

I, however, made no claims regarding there being a standard view of morality. I made the claim that there is a standard view of the relationship between atheism and morality in Christian academics. When Christians come along who are unaware of that standard and make an invalid argument, rather than take pains to try to show them why they are wrong, which only plays into their position by allowing them to accuse you of just being arrogant before God and thus "proving" their case, you can simply point out that they don't even understand their own faith and point them to the proper view.

There is no need, then, in THIS thread to expound on my own view of morality. It is enough to simply point out that no educated Christian holds to the view that atheists cannot be moral--at least, not without severe qualifications of such a degree that require us to recognize that no human being can be moral. Obviously, that doesn't help their case, either.

Regarding your point on the interpretation of Romans 2:14ff, I would be shocked to hear anyone argue that atheists don't have morality and then put forward that view, because the two claims are mutually exclusive. How can a person say that atheists can't be moral, and then argue that you recognize morality and live by it even as you reject the source? If you can't be moral, then you can't live by a moral code inherent in all humans, even as you reject the source. If, though, you live by a moral code inherent in all humans, even as you reject its source, then we can't say that you can't be moral! If, then, you've actually had people use that interpretation, just call them on their own self-contradiction and be done with it.

I like many of Jac3510's posts, but to whom is this standard argument a standard?

Thank you, MP, for the kind remarks. I've found the people and conversation here stimulating and very fair, even though I've only been here a short time so far. To answer your question, as I've tried to make clear in this thread, the argument is standard in Christian academia. It is our job to teach it to the populace, much like we have to do with the rest of Christian doctrine. Sadly, many pastors these days are more concerned with teaching "relevant" sermons on things like how to better balance your checkbook and how to have a better marriage than they are on textual exposition.

I'm sure everyone on this board has heard of and read C. S. Lewis. I will use him as only ONE example, precisely because he is so popular. The entire basis of his Mere Christianity is that atheists can be moral, and, in fact, often are. If you deny that premise, then his entire argument goes out the window. Now, he was by no means the first to present his case. I mention it, again, only to illustrate how long what I am saying has been around. So the next time someone tells you that you aren't capable of being moral, quote Romans 2:14ff and throw Mere Christianity in their face and ask them if they have even bothered trying to understand their own faith before trying to explain it to you. If they haven't, I'm more than convinced that you would be highly capable of giving them an excellent education on the matter.

[Kylyssa]

Better would be to point to Christian philosophers who openly reject the argument. Tell them that they are on the wrong side not only of modern Christian scholarship, but of Christian scholarship historically.

If they believe we are immoral then why would they accept this as an argument against it?

Why focus on Christianity as it ought to be practiced rather than as it is practiced?  In practice, pastors, priests, and ministers are out there teaching the "atheists are immoral" doctrine in their churches.  Yes, it's incorrect and they ought not to be but it has real-world consequences.  

To you, this is a cerebral exercise of learning and understanding.  You don't need to try to figure out how to keep the Christians from demonizing you so they can destroy you without guilt.  You are a Christian, you don't belong to the demonized group.  

Finally, the standard argument is not one held behind closed doors in seminaries. As I've already said, this is a standard argument that no one disagrees with.

No one disagrees with it?  Really?

Our job is to popularlize it so that those outside of the academy can get it right, too.

Yes, it is your job.

In any case, I know of absolutely no Christian philosopher or theologian who argues that atheists cannot be moral. Literally every single one of them, to a man, expressly rejects the position as absurd and anti-biblical.

Really, none?  Not one?  

Rather than justifying the popular argument about morality by arguing with them on its merits, point out that they are incorrect and have misunderstood their own argument. You can use any one of a million highly respected Christian theologians, apologists, and philosophers to prove your point. You "win the argument," and I have one less Christian making bad arguments to worry about.

You are totally missing the fact that they won't "listen" to us because they believe we are inherently immoral.  Here's an exercise for you.  Instead of putting this non-argument to a bunch of atheists on an atheist forum, go and pose as an atheist on a Christian forum.  Hunt for the "atheists have no morals" thread and resurrect it.  Then, posing as an atheist, give them the old "you're incorrect and have misunderstood your own argument" you've given here and see how well it works for you.  They have to "listen" to you for the non-argument to work.  If they've already got you pegged as an immoral atheist anything you say is tainted - until you can convince them you are not the demon they've painted you as.  I'm not joking, nor am I making light of this.  Try it.

[Jac3510]

If they believe we are immoral then why would they accept this as an argument against it?

Why focus on Christianity as it ought to be practiced rather than as it is practiced? In practice, pastors, priests, and ministers are out there teaching the "atheists are immoral" doctrine in their churches. Yes, it's incorrect and they ought not to be but it has real-world consequences.

To you, this is a cerebral exercise of learning and understanding. You don't need to try to figure out how to keep the Christians from demonizing you so they can destroy you without guilt. You are a Christian, you don't belong to the demonized group.

Those people believe what they believe because someone else told them it is true. They haven't taken the time to study the text for themselves. Bear in mind, they base their beliefs on what they think the Bible says. My point to you is very practical, Kylyssa. If you really want them to stop demonizing you, then your best strategy is to point out that Christian scholars don't agree. If you continue to argue that they are simply wrong, then all they are going to hear is that you are disagreeing with the Bible, which will only reinforce the error in their mind.

No one disagrees with it? Really?

Not in Christian academia.

Yes, it is your job.

Do I detect a snarky tone, Kylyssa? I'm honestly asking, because it is easy to misconstrue intentions when all you have to look at are words. If so, may I ask what I have done to offend you, because all I've been doing is pointing out misunderstandings and offering you the best strategy to help everyone in this case. We all agree that Christians who argue that atheists can't be moral are a problem. Does it offend you that I am offering you a better way, from the perspective of someone who deals with it (and successfully, might I add) on a regular basis no less?

Really, none? Not one?

Really. Not one.

Perhaps they are out there. If you know of a theologian or philosopher who has made the argument that atheists can't be moral, feel free to let me know. Then I'd be able to say I know one. In any case, my basic point to you remains the same. The standard argument in Christian academia, which is not contested for the most part by atheistic philosophers, is that atheism provides no foundation for objective, transcendent moral statements. We don't argue that atheists can't be immoral.

You are totally missing the fact that they won't "listen" to us because they believe we are inherently immoral. Here's an exercise for you. Instead of putting this non-argument to a bunch of atheists on an atheist forum, go and pose as an atheist on a Christian forum. Hunt for the "atheists have no morals" thread and resurrect it. Then, posing as an atheist, give them the old "you're incorrect and have misunderstood your own argument" you've given here and see how well it works for you. They have to "listen" to you for the non-argument to work. If they've already got you pegged as an immoral atheist anything you say is tainted - until you can convince them you are not the demon they've painted you as. I'm not joking, nor am I making light of this. Try it.

What makes you think I haven't done that? What makes you think I haven't had this basic discussion a hundred thousand times over? I told you in my last reply that the approach you are taking only reinforces their worldview. THAT is why they don't believe you. I am telling you, as a Christian, how to get through to Christians. I am telling you, as a Christian who has persuaded a great many Christians, both online and in person, on this issue, the best way to handle this.

Again, you can continue going about it like you always do. I wish you wouldn't, because it is a lose-lose situation. You lose because they keep demonizing you. I lose because I have more Christians out there making stupid arguments. I propose a win-win. Point out to them that they have misunderstood their own faith. Explain to them what the standard argument actually is. Quote Christian scholars they know and respect. Ask them to provide one such scholar who takes it as they do. They won't admit to your face that you are right (no one wants to admit they are wrong), but if they read the materials you point them to, and why wouldn't they, since they are Christian materials, they will drop the stupid argument, which is what we both want.

Your choice, my friend.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You are totally missing the fact that they won't "listen" to us because they believe we are inherently immoral.  Here's an exercise for you.  Instead of putting this non-argument to a bunch of atheists on an atheist forum, go and pose as an atheist on a Christian forum.  Hunt for the "atheists have no morals" thread and resurrect it.  Then, posing as an atheist, give them the old "you're incorrect and have misunderstood your own argument" you've given here and see how well it works for you.  They have to "listen" to you for the non-argument to work.  If they've already got you pegged as an immoral atheist anything you say is tainted - until you can convince them you are not the demon they've painted you as.  I'm not joking, nor am I making light of this.  Try it.

There's a banhammer at the end of that hallway, I can vouch for that.  As soon as you even mention that you're an atheist, you have a bull's-eye on your back so far as the staff at the site is concerned.

[Kylyssa]

Those people believe what they believe because someone else told them it is true. They haven't taken the time to study the text for themselves. Bear in mind, they base their beliefs on what they think the Bible says. My point to you is very practical, Kylyssa. If you really want them to stop demonizing you, then your best strategy is to point out that Christian scholars don't agree. If you continue to argue that they are simply wrong, then all they are going to hear is that you are disagreeing with the Bible, which will only reinforce the error in their mind.

Don't you think we need to change the belief that we are immoral first?  

Pretend you encounter an alien being for the first time.  Everyone you know and trust has said that aliens are evil and they only lie and twist words around.  They tell you not to listen to what aliens say.  Generations of people all make these assertions about aliens.  Are you going to listen to what the alien has to say or would you first want proof that he's not evil?

I can and have pointed out how some Christians' actions, stated beliefs or words don't match with what the Bible says, dozens of times if not hundreds.  They respond that you can't get anything out of the Bible if you read it as a skeptic.  They ignore what I'm saying and attack me as a source.  If I say that Biblical scholars disagree with them, they will simply take it as a tactic and a lie.  They'll claim I'm twisting words.  They can't get past the fact that I'm an atheist.

Yes, it is your job.

Do I detect a snarky tone, Kylyssa? I'm honestly asking, because it is easy to misconstrue intentions when all you have to look at are words. If so, may I ask what I have done to offend you, because all I've been doing is pointing out misunderstandings and offering you the best strategy to help everyone in this case. We all agree that Christians who argue that atheists can't be moral are a problem. Does it offend you that I am offering you a better way, from the perspective of someone who deals with it (and successfully, might I add) on a regular basis no less?

I'm very literal.  I'm agreeing that it is your job.  It's not my job to teach people how to be reasonable Christians, it's yours since you have chosen it.

Really, none? Not one?

Really. Not one.

Perhaps they are out there. If you know of a theologian or philosopher who has made the argument that atheists can't be moral, feel free to let me know. Then I'd be able to say I know one. In any case, my basic point to you remains the same. The standard argument in Christian academia, which is not contested for the most part by atheistic philosophers, is that atheism provides no foundation for objective, transcendent moral statements. We don't argue that atheists can't be immoral.

Define theologian.  Many people who go to seminary claim the title.  Are they correct or not?

You are totally missing the fact that they won't "listen" to us because they believe we are inherently immoral. Here's an exercise for you. Instead of putting this non-argument to a bunch of atheists on an atheist forum, go and pose as an atheist on a Christian forum. Hunt for the "atheists have no morals" thread and resurrect it. Then, posing as an atheist, give them the old "you're incorrect and have misunderstood your own argument" you've given here and see how well it works for you. They have to "listen" to you for the non-argument to work. If they've already got you pegged as an immoral atheist anything you say is tainted - until you can convince them you are not the demon they've painted you as. I'm not joking, nor am I making light of this. Try it.

What makes you think I haven't done that?

Have you posed as an atheist to make that correction on a Christian forum - not a theology school forum or seminary forum - a standard, run-of-the-mill Christian forum?  I'm asking you outright - have you posed as an atheist to see how effective that approach is for atheists?

You lose because they keep demonizing you.

Don't they need to be disabused of their belief in atheists as immoral first?

I lose because I have more Christians out there making stupid arguments.

How so?  They make the assertion, I don't.  I don't increase the number of people making stupid statements by telling them they are wrong.  Perhaps you could decrease the number of Christians making stupid arguments by educating them?  If some kids are doing poorly in school you don't take aside the kids who aren't and tell them they need to respond to the kids doing poorly that they are doing poorly in school you take aside the kids having trouble in school and educate them.

I propose a win-win. Point out to them that they have misunderstood their own faith.

I honestly couldn't tell you how many times I've pointed that out in regard to other issues.  Why would it work with this issue when it doesn't seem to work with others?  

Quote Christian scholars they know and respect. Ask them to provide one such scholar who takes it as they do. They won't admit to your face that you are right (no one wants to admit they are wrong), but if they read the materials you point them to, and why wouldn't they, since they are Christian materials, they will drop the stupid argument, which is what we both want.

The problem is that few Christians I've interacted with know any Christian scholars - they won't know who I'm quoting and in the best circumstance they'll quote their own "scholar" like Pat Robertson or Ray Comfort.  In the worst circumstance they'll just disagree or say it's a lie.  It's how they react in discussions about evolution - I find a giant list of Christians who are scientists who support the theory of evolution and they parry back with some Creation "Science" expert who disagrees or they just say my scientists aren't real Christians.

I have another challenge for you.  Go out into the street in a medium sized city and ask people as they walk by - "What Christian scholars do you know and respect?"  

And even if we could educate average Christians about who their experts are "My experts are better than your experts" isn't a great argument for or against anything, anyway.

[notself]

...Then I'd be able to say I know one. In any case, my basic point to you remains the same. The standard argument in Christian academia, which is not contested for the most part by atheistic philosophers, is that atheism provides no foundation for objective, transcendent moral statements. We don't argue that atheists can't be immoral.

Buddhism followed by over 600 million people is atheistic. Taoism followed by approximately 300,000 people is also atheistic in the western use of the word.  A third atheistic philosophy followed by millions of people is Confucianism.  These philosophies have a deep foundations of objective and transcendent moral statements.

When you make the statement that for the most part atheistic philosophers say there is no foundation for morality in atheism, you are overlooking the philosophers of Asia.

[Jac3510]

Don't you think we need to change the belief that we are immoral first?

No. Look, this is their argument:

1. The Bible says atheists can't be moral
2. The Bible is true in everything it says
3. Therefore, it is true that atheists can't be moral

The argument is valid. It's obviously not sound. You can try to argue that (2) is false, but you won't get anywhere with these people because it is taken as a matter of faith. Your best bet is to challenge (1). The Bible doesn't say that. It says the opposite. For you to try to change their mind without challenging their argument would be to get them to claim the Bible is wrong. You will never get anywhere with that.

Pretend you encounter an alien being for the first time.  Everyone you know and trust has said that aliens are evil and they only lie and twist words around.  They tell you not to listen to what aliens say.  Generations of people all make these assertions about aliens.  Are you going to listen to what the alien has to say or would you first want proof that he's not evil?

I would assume he was evil because it is all I know. If he pulled out the very source I have been using, however, to claim that he is evil and showed me where, in that source, it said the exact opposite, I would be forced to choose between that source and the opinion of my friends. Further, if the alien pointed to an authority I highly respected on alien morality and showed me where he himself expressly repudiated my view and explained why it was wrong, I would be forced to change my view.

I can and have pointed out how some Christians' actions, stated beliefs or words don't match with what the Bible says, dozens of times if not hundreds.  They respond that you can't get anything out of the Bible if you read it as a skeptic.  They ignore what I'm saying and attack me as a source.  If I say that Biblical scholars disagree with them, they will simply take it as a tactic and a lie.  They'll claim I'm twisting words.  They can't get past the fact that I'm an atheist.

That is because you as an atheist are trying to convince them. Show them C. S. Lewis. Show the William Lane Craig. Show the Gary Habermaus. Show them J. P. Moreland, John Frame, Norman Geisler, or any one of a hundred others. Make them argue with their own theologians, not with you. You have no credibility with them. Those people do.

Define theologian.  Many people who go to seminary claim the title.  Are they correct or not?

Going to seminary doesn't make you a theologian. Seminaries, for the most part, are designed to train a person in pastoral ministry. Seminary grads get some theological education. Unless they received a Ph.D in theology, they are likely not a theologian.

For the purposes of our discussion, I'll define a theologian as a person with a terminal degree in theology or a related field whose profession is to research and teach theological studies in an academic setting. Respected theologians are typically the ones who are published my the academic houses of major Christian publishing groups (i..e, Baker, Zondervan, IVP, Nelson, etc.).

Pastors who say that atheists can't be moral are wrong. Now, with that said, honestly, how many M.Div grads have you had on here making this argument?

Have you posed as an atheist to make that correction on a Christian forum - not a theology school forum or seminary forum - a standard, run-of-the-mill Christian forum?  I'm asking you outright - have you posed as an atheist to see how effective that approach is for atheists?

Have I posed as an atheist? No. That would be dishonest. Have I seen atheists point these things out successfully in these venues? Yes, I have. I don't know if you read my intro thread, but I have many, many years of discussion boards under my belt. I've seen everything under the sun. This hardly new.

Don't they need to be disabused of their belief in atheists as immoral first?

See my original comments on this. You are putting the cart before the horse, logically speaking.

How so?  They make the assertion, I don't.  I don't increase the number of people making stupid statements by telling them they are wrong.  Perhaps you could decrease the number of Christians making stupid arguments by educating them?  If some kids are doing poorly in school you don't take aside the kids who aren't and tell them they need to respond to the kids doing poorly that they are doing poorly in school you take aside the kids having trouble in school and educate them.

I lose because a Christian is making stupid arguments who doesn't need to be.

I noticed you never answered my question from before. Have you not ever corrected a religious person on what their own book teaches? Why would you do that if it isn't your job at all? Don't you agree that everyone wins when Christians stop making this blatantly false argument?

I honestly couldn't tell you how many times I've pointed that out in regard to other issues.  Why would it work with this issue when it doesn't seem to work with others?

Too vague. I can't make a comparison without specific examples. But based on how the conversation has gone so far, if your method is to try to get them to admit that they are wrong without challenging their interpretation of Scripture by appealing to authorities they trust, then, again, you are just effectively asking them to deny the Bible's veracity. That's a waste of time.

The problem is that few Christians I've interacted with know any Christian scholars - they won't know who I'm quoting and in the best circumstance they'll quote their own "scholar" like Pat Robertson or Ray Comfort.  In the worst circumstance they'll just disagree or say it's a lie.  It's how they react in discussions about evolution - I find a giant list of Christians who are scientists who support the theory of evolution and they parry back with some Creation "Science" expert who disagrees or they just say my scientists aren't real Christians.

I have another challenge for you.  Go out into the street in a medium sized city and ask people as they walk by - "What Christian scholars do you know and respect?"  
I assume by the quotation marks that you recognize that those men are not scholars. As far as your challenge goes, rather than asking them to name scholars--they won't be able to--you ask them, "Have you ever heard of C. S. Lewis/J. P. Moreland/Francis Schaeffer/Charles Ryrie/B. B. Warfield/etc.?" Most people will respond affirmatively to that question. Then you pull out those sources.

And even if we could educate average Christians about who their experts are "My experts are better than your experts" isn't a great argument for or against anything, anyway.

I'm not telling you to make an appeal to authority to prove your point. What I am trying to help you see is that those people base their theological views on what men like that have said the Bible means. The moment you make it YOUR argument, you've done the very thing I am telling you is driving people away. As an atheist, you have no credibility. You can complain about why that shouldn't be the case all day long, but that's just the fact. So you can argue with them as an atheist and just further reinforce their belief, or, you can argue on their own turf. You can point out that the very people who they get their theology from don't read the Bible the way they do.

My point is VERY simple, despite all these words:

Make the argument between them and Christian scholars. If you make it between you and them, you lose, because you are the "evil infidel."

[Jac3510]

...Then I'd be able to say I know one. In any case, my basic point to you remains the same. The standard argument in Christian academia, which is not contested for the most part by atheistic philosophers, is that atheism provides no foundation for objective, transcendent moral statements. We don't argue that atheists can't be immoral.

Buddhism followed by over 600 million people is atheistic. Taoism followed by approximately 300,000 people is also atheistic in the western use of the word.  A third atheistic philosophy followed by millions of people is Confucianism.  These philosophies have a deep foundations of objective and transcendent moral statements.

When you make the statement that for the most part atheistic philosophers say there is no foundation for morality in atheism, you are overlooking the philosophers of Asia.

I'm not familiar enough with Buddhism or Taoism to comment with any kind of confidence, but I can make two general observations:

1. Eastern religion as a whole, being pantheistic, doesn't make moral judgments in the same sense that Western culture does. There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as "right" and "wrong." Everything is ultimately a matter of perspective.
2. It is logically impossible to ground objective morality without appealing to the superhuman. If you want to discuss this in detail, let's open another thread on it. Just note that I am NOT saying that atheists can't be moral; I'm NOT saying they can't know right from wrong. I'm saying that, without reference to God, objective moral values is a meaningless concept. I can quote more than a few atheist philosophers who strongly prove the point if you like . . . in another thread, of course.

[notself]

I'm not familiar enough with Buddhism or Taoism to comment with any kind of confidence, but I can make two general observations:
1. Eastern religion as a whole, being pantheistic, doesn't make moral judgments in the same sense that Western culture does. There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as "right" and "wrong." Everything is ultimately a matter of perspective.
2. It is logically impossible to ground objective morality without appealing to the superhuman. If you want to discuss this in detail, let's open another thread on it. Just note that I am NOT saying that atheists can't be moral; I'm NOT saying they can't know right from wrong. I'm saying that, without reference to God, objective moral values is a meaningless concept. I can quote more than a few atheist philosophers who strongly prove the point if you like . . . in another thread, of course.

You say you are not familiar with Buddhism or Taoism yet you assert that "Eastern religion as a whole is pantheistic."  Perhaps it would help if you knew more about Asian religions.  You are correct that Asian religions do not make moral judgements in the same way Western culture does.  By culture I assume you mean religious culture.  Western religious culture is based on the concept of sin and in particular Original Sin.  Asian religions and Buddhism in particular are based on skillful and unskillful behavior.  From this point on I will be speaking from the Buddhist POV since I am most familiar with that moral philosophy.  

There are three aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the structure of Buddhist teaching.  They are morality, concentration and wisdom.  Morality (Sila) is based on precepts, some types of Buddhism have more but all contain these five.  Rather than commandments these precepts are undertaken by those who wish to lead a moral life.  I will have to continue in the next post.

[deekayfry]

As to Pascal's Wager, it is invalid as hell is not falsifiable.  It is not a place that any of us can spontaneously go to.  If Pascal wagered that we should put our bet on Paris or New York, the wager has merits because I can go to Paris and New York.

 I ask any Christian or anyone for that matter, who isn't selling a book for profit, to honestly tell me that you have been to a literal hell.  That is the very hell that is being shouted from pulpits from Sunday to Sunday and a Wednesday in between.  I mean have gone to it, not in some dream or fantasy, but you walked through a pair of doors, felt the heat, heard the screams, tasted the blood in the air.

Have you actually met the demons who torment the souls?  Shook their hands and asked for their phone number?  If you have can I have their number so I can ask them a few questions about booking room in hell?

I am being facetious yes, but a belief in something does not make it true.  It won't be true even if a single person believes it or a billion people believe it.  What makes anything true, or truer is an actual physical reality.  When someone tells me that they've been to hell... and then follow that with words like Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Palestine, or Rwanda.  I  am going to believe them.  Those places are in the news, people have been there and lived to tell it, they bring pictures of it, the number of people are in the thousands and millions.

Yet, this otherworldly hell... where is the evidence?  Where are the real witnesses?  Where are the pictures, and voice recordings?  All we have to go by is that a billion people believe in it.

Pascal wager is simply a thought tool that is an Appeal to an Expert.  It is used to bolster a case or offered  as a proof.