What research I have not seen any research presented in the original post it was just a mans ideas that he based on what he had been hearing in the media lately.

Oh, I agree in general with almost everything you've said.  Things I disagree on.

I think charity is a good choice though because it is the one thing that is "moral" throughout the ages.  It's the only real basis you can have without people trying to rangle what's moral and what isn't.

I also think the study is fairly fair... only because Atheists ARE loosely related individuals... which is my point that people keep going over.

Churches work effectivly as "moral drivers."  Atheists on average don't have this same driver therefore aren't as moral on average.

The "best" of them line up with the "best" of religious people... but where they fall down is in getting your "moderately interested but can't be bothered" types on board.

The people who would say yes if charity came to them, but not if they have to go to charity... and/or the types that would do so under community pressure.'

As for the "government charity" aspect.  To me it seems like a complete non-aspect because Librals and conservatives live in the same world.  If they lived in different countries where charitable spending on the poor was different, you'd have a point.

However, at best you could argue that "Support for more intervention" is a replacement for "actual giving".

One man argues the government should give the starving food.

The other gives the starving food.

The second is taking action to save the starving.  The first while wanting more support is still watching the starving die in the streets.

http://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/Spr07BRGrinols.pdf

For one.  There is a lot of research on it though.  That generally finds that the biggest indicator on if you are going to give to charity or not is if you practice religion.

Also the human race has never to date seen an in reality a ideal communism, all forms of it that have existed are either totalitarian or fascist or dictatorships or just plain organized crime syndicates.

That's just being fair though.

Someone also beat me to it and said Stalin was a nationalist and that while he may have been Atheist which would desensitize him to the values others hold in their religion it does nothing to promote why he killed so many people.

However his nationalistic pride which you get from quotes like:

When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.

or

We do not want a single foot of foreign territory; but of our territory we shall not surrender a single inch to anyone.

Remember this man was a patriot so he didn't fight for just land he fought for values that he understood the USSR as representing.

Here's a good one from him about religion:

Anti-Semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.

This is the man you said killed because he was Atheist remember.

If his own words aren't enough to show that his actions were not fueled by his religious beliefs then you’re on your own.

Sorry bro, but this article is crap not enough statistics. Also I have no doubt that Christians donate more money than Atheists on average because they are used to being asked for money in their church services every week. A man at the podium asks for money so you give it to him because he says its important.

Also it matters what charity is involved because if the charity uses the money to convert other people to be Christians than it is not a charity, it just serves to serve the religion and promoting its uptake among the masses. A lot of supposed chariyty by Christians helps people, yet its underlying purpose is to spread the word of god. That is not charity that is manipulation. it only serves the religion.

the point didnt seem to be that stalin was killing people because he was atheist.  just that he was an atheist and did that.   which is the topic.  atheism and morality.   stalin being an atheist and showing a lack of morals is a perfectly fine argument for him to make.

How many wars have been started in the name of atheism, again?

What? So your saying because he was Atheist and commited murder that Atheists have morals in line with mass murder or genocide?

Dude, Stalins morals were fine, if the Russians had won that is. I remember a bit of the cold war, I remember how much the Russians hated England and the US anything not Russian, the US hated the Russians almost as much.  This hate came from Nationalism, a conflict of values.

Here's a touch of history without any bias.

1. Stalin replaced Lenin and was much more brutal than Lenin.

2. Stalin wanted to keep USSR as one country and saw the Ukraine as a place of potential issues in that agenda.

3. Stalin Captured and or killed Scholars, Artists, Culturalists and Religous members (Around 6000 of them) The reason he did this was to null media and begin his propoganda machine. This had nothing to do with morals, this was about defence, his nationalistic pride. It's the equivilent of a burglar getting into your house and you using deadly force. Maybe this burglar had no intent of harming anything at all who knows. The morals of that situation isn't up for arguement, it's the same thing except USSR was the house and Stalin used deadly force on a new value system.

4. Stalin starved about 6 million people (I think, can't really remember) Then said you kill 1 man it's a tragedy but kill a million and it becomes statistic. Out of context that sounds immoral but in context morals have little to do with that.

Judging his actions from an arm chair just seems like a waste though, what he did was atrocious to the average person but to the people carrying it out, he did it for the betterment of the USSR the Russians carried this sentiment even to the 80's.

Now it's easy to point the finger at one guy but he had a whole population that agreed with what he was doing to the Ukraine, this is the source of the answer to "why" the answer is Nationalism. Not morals and definetly not Atheism.

So, the article doesn't have enough stats... yet you except it as real anyway... yet are trying to argue for no reason.

Religious people do more moral acts.  So... yeah.  You even agreed.  Don't get your argueing.  I don't know if people just aren't actually reading what i'm writing and letting emotions take over or what.

I don't get it.  Either way, there are tons of articles out there on it.  All with the same results with different levels of stats.

It's just a proven fact.

my position is that there are not many atheists that can be held up as examples of good morals(even two that someone brought up appear to be only agnostics that atheists seem to be essentially hijacking).  So if people can only name "bad" atheists then people will assume that atheists arent moral.  With more prominent clearly upstanding atheists then people wouldnt generalize atheists as having no morals or being immoral.

the other person brought up high profile atheists who do not have a good morals.  i would probably argue that those individuals are amoral.  Someone mentioned that atheists actually have a better moral code, so i guess he believes those people are immoral and essentially evil(since they know right and wrong but are willfully choosing to act wrongly).  I couldnt tell you whether or not either feel it reflects poorly on atheists as a whole.

In my personal experience, most of the atheists ive known (and no im not saying all atheists are this way) tend to be bitter and hate god, rather than reaching the decision that god doesnt exist through a logical thought process.  It doesnt even seem a rational position to me.  I can understand an agnostic "god probably doesnt exist" point of view... but to be so absolutely positive about something unknowable...(even religious people can claim personal experience that affirms their belief,  but what situation would someone have to prove that He doesnt exist)

I hope this answers your question.