No. Again you are simply pushing the "Christianity is the only way" barrow. You've cited one example form your personal experience an have applied it to all of mankind.

All forms of moral behaviour are not dependent upon adherence to Christian beliefs. In the example of the two individuals on the island, your reasoning implies the necessity for a dual set of moral standards to have developed in individuals, the immoral and the moral, with a particular set of circumstances being necessary for the manifestation of the alternate set. This reasoning is flawed. You have not expained why this immoral set of behaviours would develop alongside the moral, nor why it would manifest itself when the opposite would be more beneficial to the individual's survival. It would be counterproductiove to behave immoraly, to continue with your example, when to do the opposite would be the more beneficial way to behave.

How would anyone develop this dual set of morals? Why would a change of circumstance bring out the worst?

Like it or not Boaz, a set of behavioual standards that allow a community to function do not have to be based in christian doctrine.

You genuinely don't get it, Boaz, but I will keep trying to correct you just as long as you keep making these ridiculously sweeping generalizations about the moral and ethical characteristics of others.

But I am beginning to enjoy the internal contradictions in your posts - some of them are simply delicious. This one for example:

>>You are also assuming that morality with which atheists will act.. is going to be an agreed or universally applicable one..and that my friend is a logical fallacy,with no basis in anthropological, sociological philosophical and perhaps the most important.."historical" -fact.<<

The point I made in an earlier post was exactly that - except that the word "christian" could be substituted for "atheist". I illustrated this with a little news item about a christian...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html

- no, not just a christian, but the "pastor of Montgomery's Thorington Road Baptist Church". I strongly suspect that he was not following any "morality with which christians will act.. [that is] an agreed or universally applicable one"

So here we have it. Christians clearly do not have "an agreed or universally applicable morality". They pick and choose, just like the rest of humankind.

The only difference is that christians have somehow managed to convince themselves that they are somehow different, and that the normal rules that govern our lives somehow don't apply to them.

In most societies, this would be classed as hypocrisy, Boaz.

Your example of the two guys on the desert island begs an obvious question: how would the behaviour of two christians differ? More importantly, what evidence can you offer to support your theory, given the behaviour of our pastor?

Try as you might, Boaz, you cannot escape the obvious.

I pointed out that "[t]o those whom you target, telling them that they fit within, in your view, an immoral category, is exactly the same as calling them immoral, as individuals."

Your response is less than edifying:

>>You see ? :) you did it..A-GAIN.. and here it is. "an immoral category" That is not, has not been..and will continue not to be.. my point. Refer my post above for the answer.<<

There was nothing in the "post above" that bore any resemblance to an answer, Boaz.

Let's recap. You spend your waking hours - possibly sleeping ones as well - painting Islam as evil. You then somehow expect Muslims not to notice this, and just say "mmm, that's an interesting point, Boaz".

More likely, they will make a strong association between your hatred of their religion and a hatred of themselves as people, since they consider Islam to be an indissoluble part of their make-up.

Does this make any sense to you?

If I said - this is hypothetical, because I would say absolutely no such thing - that Christianity is an evil force in the world, would you not make the slightest connection between that statement, and how I might conceivably feel about you?

And continuing the theme of the internal contradictions in your posts, I had to chuckle at this one:

>>I am arguing that without a divine reference point, all morality and systems of it.. are relative.<<

But it seems, Boaz, that even with a "divine reference point", christians still behave with as much freedom from restraint as non-christians - I'm sure you don't want me to catalogue all the obvious examples here - which would appear to show that the christian morality is also extremely relative.

Or expedient, as we atheists like to point out from time to time.

Perhaps Boaz you'd also like to consider the behaviour of a significant number of Catholic and Anglican priests with their choir boys/pupils over the past several decades, or centuries I would imagine as there is no reason to assume that their trangressions have occurred only over the past few decades only. Oh Christian morals indeed. Masturbation, oral sex and buggery! And they didn't even need to find themselves conveniently marooned on an island with the choir to indulge their frustrations

Pericles and Ditch,
Thanks for concluding the Christian position that "All persons are inherently evil and fall far short of any divine standard".

That is why the Christian position of repentance for moral violations and Grace to the undeserving person is only found in Christian theology.

All others societies hang, shoot or electrocute violators of the societies moral laws. There is no concept of repentance and grace extended to sinners. We are all equally as sinful wether Christian, atheists, or of another religion.

Oh, ri-i-i-i-i-ght. Now it is clear, thank you Philo.

>>All persons are inherently evil and fall far short of any divine standard<<

So, we can now take it as admitted, that all this finger-pointing and name-calling by you christians against Islam is nothing but pure hypocrisy?

As in "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone"

Or even:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

That pretty much says it all, don't you think?

>>the Christian position of repentance for moral violations and Grace to the undeserving person is only found in Christian theology. All others societies hang, shoot or electrocute violators of the societies moral laws<<

Hold on a moment. Since when are a religion and "all other societies" one and the same? Are you trying to say that a christian should be forgiven - rather than hung, shot or electrocuted - when they commit a crime that demands that penalty?

But your statement is rubbish anyway. There is a strong correlation between the existence of the death penalty in the US, and the presence of a christian "moral majority" in that State.

Texas even executes juveniles - that's kids under eighteen - there have been eight in the last five years alone.

Christian forgiveness? Tell that to the marines.