I can't really think of any important distinctions.

You covered most of the big ones. It's all related to sex somehow.

Oh, what about euthanasia used on terminally ill patients, in a vegetative state, etc.?

Atheist do? Most people aren't concerned with the environment, China and India sure don't. Most individuals don't, the notion of the effects on generations long after their gone, is given as much affection as a stranger's fetus, for atheist.

Do you have some sort of magical argument for the many irreligious folk I know just like this? There's nothing irrational, or even unscientific, or religious, about saying I choose to live my life for the here and now, to tend to my immediate concerns, not to sacrifice my life in better for a world I'm no longer going to be a part of. 

Secular Indians walked by impoverished children all the time, and do nothing about it, unconcerned about their welfare, and being, and atheism has some fairy does "concern" quality does it? A woman holding her six month old child, was molested for 45 minutes on septa train the other day, in broad daylight, while everyone else around her, were in their own worlds, self-absorbed, and detached from the people around them. 

Really? The early christians weren't slaughtered in mass for defying, and opposing authority? The Sermon on the Mount is all about defying authority. 

To quote Paul:

"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12)."

The difference between most notions of defiance, and the christian notion, is that it is to be an act of love, to bring both oppressors and oppressed into the fold of Gods love. 

And this is blatantly false, all the major branches, from evangelicals, to Catholics, to mainline Christianity, have explicitly advocated care for the environment. 

This is statement from the National Association of Evangelicals, which encompasses 30 millions members, and 50,000 Evangelical Churches in the US alone:

"We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part," said the statement, which has been distributed to 50,000 member churches. "Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."

This statement has been signed by the likes of James Dobson, Ted Haggard (prior to his fall), Chuck Holson and etc. Even the Evangelical publication Christianity Today declared: ""Christians should make it clear to governments and businesses that we are willing to adapt our lifestyles and support steps towards changes that protect our environment."

I could continue on, quoting from the Pope, Charity in Truth, that painted the crucial concern of the catholic church and the environment, the Lutheran church and etc... But the fact is all the majors branches of Christianity have adopted similar statements. 

So what was that again, about theist believing they are incapable of altering the earth? Pure bull shit.

Secondly, atheism/disbelief doesn't holds some magic, it's not a worldview, it's not a religion, it doesn't have any magical concerns attached to it, or that appear once one becomes a disbeliever, though individuals such as yourself may believe superstitiously that it does. 

The wide majority of non-religious individuals I know, don't care too much about the environment. Their concerns are about their everyday living, making ends meet, tending to their family, not the issues concerning generations far apart from them, this is not to say their lack of religion, or belief is the cause of this at all. China's and India's disregard for environmental concerns, are not so because of religiosity, but rather the concerns of their everyday living in the here and now. Being unconcerned, having a lack of empathy in regards to the future generations, is not the result of being irrational, or even unscientific, and you don't get individuals magically concerned by such arguments either. It's a dilemma with very few solutions available, and if someone is to find it, it's not going to be scientist, artists perhaps, but not scientist. 

Since we're throwing around anecdotes, I might as well interject that it has been my experience that the only thing Christians have in common is a belief in God and Jesus.

Their views on abortion, sex, marriage, homosexuality are rather diverse.

Most Christians, just like most individuals, attach some sense of "sacredness" or "specialness" to sex, most woman desire for their first time to be special, to be lost to someone they care for or love, and not to a random dude they met at a bar. Husbands and wives, desire for sex to be something "special" or "sacred" between each other, and not shared with others as hand shakes are. Most parents do not desire their daughters to be promiscuous, they want her to have some value over her body and sexuality, they desire for her to have some sense of "sacredness" for it. We have pragmatic reasons for this, such as we don't desire for men to see woman as mere sexual objects, or woman to see themselves as merely sexual objects for men, and sexual lust can be disastrous to families, communities, etc.. as the love of money can be. 

We attach sacredness to all sorts of things, such as "human life", compared to the life of roaches. And even though most of us have some sense of "sacredness" attached to the lives of some other animals other than ourselves, such as dogs, PETA members often extend this sense of sacredness to flies. There's no fixed point of "sacredness", such as the abortion debate, where most individuals, theist and atheist alike don't support late term abortions, other than in extreme circumstances. Most of us attach some sacredness to a level of the child's development before it's actually conceived, but we just differ on where that level begins. 

We all desire to cultivate some sense of sacredness attached to sexuality, but we disagree on exactly where that level begins. 

Refer to the above. 

But the reason, why individuals attach sacredness to fetuses, can be easily seen if you ever watched a an expectant mother, or father, fawning over sonograms, moved by the first trace of life appearing in a womb. It's not just a mere lump of cells to the expecting mothers, and fathers, but something deeply sacred, something meaningful, and valued. Such individuals who attach a sense of sacredness more heavily than others do, turn to communities that share in that sense of sacredness, and this primarily being "religious communities", while individuals who attach a sense of sacredness more heavily to animal life than most of us do, turn to groups such as PETA.

Attaching sacredness to things, may all be "unscientific", in the same sense the value of a gift is "unscientific" to the receiver. An economist would say the value of the dress is merely it's price, the wife whose received it, attaches a sense of value to it much more so than that. 

All these terms, such "a pact between god and two people", or the "manifestation of God's will", are for the sake of claiming the sacredness of something, it's attaching a value to something more so than it scientific or economic price. We all do this. Believers may use religious language to express this sense of value, and atheist would resort to some other sort of aesthetic language. 

All I may be guilty of is generalising. If you don't think theists, and christians in particular, believe this en masse, then you don't know many of them. Do a google search and learn something for once.

wow, the mighty google search? You ever heard of selection bias? I might as well say, upon discovering MattShizzle, I know all about atheist. You're in serous need of developing your critical thinking faculties.

You will not find any major christian denomination, including the christian right, that claims that man "is incapable of altering the earth", what you will find is statements saying the exact opposite, that's a fact. 

So give it up, intellectual honesty demands that you concede the point, your delusions on the other hand, beg otherwise. Keep denying reality, and I'm going to continue amusing myself, at your expense.

Your choice buddy. 

Environmentalism is a recent development, anyone giving a fuck about the environment is a rather recent development. 

This isn't even worthy of an argument, but it's spoken like the dribble and delusional nonsense of those particular theist you deride. 

I agree. But I don't call it laziness, but that most people's actual level of concern is finicky and weak, particularly when it involves significant sacrifices and expenses in their daily life..

I doubt this as well, most religious people may oppose abortion, but I'd wager very few of them wouldn't support education, teaching individuals that having a harvest of children is not a good idea. And besides abortion, I don't know what other sort of "population control" most theist would oppose, that wouldn't also apply to most atheist.

Christian morality also objects to such medical practices as dignified death and genetic engineering. There's been a lot of outrage over research involving inserting human genes into nonhuman chromosomes, apparently for fear that scientists are working on making the Island of Dr. Moreau into nonfiction.

Haha, i never said google, but your particular and shoddy google search. And it's actually you're dimwitted google search < the actual statements by the various leaders, and councils of all the major christian denominations, in determining the views of most theist, in regards to if man is capable of altering the environment or not. I never said my opinion is greater than yours, but the opinions of the actual denominations in claims of their views are greater than yours.

But keep embarrassing yourself with such utter stupidity, and piss poor thinking. I'm rather enjoying it.

even more delusional arguments. Notice no one is coming in to support you views on theism and the enviroment. Instead the ones that have put their two sense on the topic have said things such as this:

"christians giving a fuck about the environment is a rather recent development. " and this "many may advocate care for the environment."

And if you feel that i've been owned in some thread let me know, tell me what view I hold or held, has been owned? Do other individuals here believe I was owned by you here? Or the other way around? What do the rest of you all think? Do other individuals here believe I was owned in the various other threads? If so, which ones, by who,  and how so.

Screw this, I give up.

While I think Twelve is an arrogant prick, he may be on to something, but instead of the Shizzler, I'll use Mr. Brown as my standard as to what atheists are like.

Kevin's arrogance and sheer assholeness reflects lots of atheists I know, and since it's seemingly okay to rely on anecdotes for this, then I guess mine is just as valid as everybody elses.

Oh and I know not all atheists are like Kevin, but the exception doesn't disprove the rule does it?

This article explains it more

http://www.mtv.com/thinkmtv/about/pdfs/teens_on_sex_ed.pdf

Only 15% supported absitence only.

I was hesitent to post the first chart, because I think the Pro life/choice debate is stupid, there are three position on abortion, not two.

The positions are indicated in the second chart, legal in all, legal in some, or not legal in any.

[EDIT]

Messed up the calculations

[/EDIT]

The survey does not distinguish WHAT restrictions, I can't seem to find any data on it.

But, if we define "pro-Life" as legal in none, than only 22% of Americans are "pro-life"

 Pineapple, for fuck's sake... take that bunch out of your panties.

I asked for numbers because I wanted numbers.  I used hypothetical numbers, said they were hypothetical, and then asked for real numbers to put into the equations.

Trust me... you don't know where I'm going with this.

Your breakdown above doesn't make any sense to me, by the way.  How did you get the pro-choice, pro-life, undecided numbers for Christians/nonchristians?

and she found it!

 http://www.gallup.com/poll/22222/religion-politics-inform-americans-views-abortion.aspx

So only 22% of Christians think that it should be completly illegal.

[I chuckled at "other religion" getting higher than "no religion" for legal in all]

Christians think morality is objective and comes from their god. Atheists tend to think morality is subjective and doesn't come from a god or religion.

You're right. I was basing what I wrote on what the bible actually teaches. But Christians all pick and choose what to believe and interpret. So basically their 'morality' is relative, they can make the bible say whatever they want to support doing what they would do anyways.

Convenience is their real god. But then that's true for all humanity.

So the few christians that say abortion is OKAY, are the bad christians that don't go to church

Thank you middle America.

Well hell's bells.  I'll admit that surprises me, too.  I wonder what the other religions are.   Seriously... that really puzzles me.  It's not muslims, I don't think.  That basically leaves buddhists, new agers, and um... hmmm... 

Anyway, thank you again, Pineapple.  These numbers are definitely getting towards what I'm trying to find out.  I wish I had more time to do google searches, but I'm working too much.

Christians have a "non-scientific" moral perspective on sex? Huh. See, I thought science had nothing to say about ethics. I thought the purpose of science was to describe nature, not to prescribe moral rules. In fact, I'm absolutely certain of that. But that would mean that there aren't any "non-scientific" views of sex, wouldn't it?

Wait, Christians don't think that children are the result of sexual intercourse?

You've already established a substantial difference between the typical Christian and atheistic moral views. I grant that you didn't list very many differences, but the differences you listed give the typical Christian a moral code that diverges wildly from that of the typical atheist. Imagine a person who practices the Christian moral code you describe perfectly: he doesn't have premarital sex or masturbate, he opposes the use of (and if a woman, does not indulge in) abortion, he treats his marriage like a gift from the Divine (and the same for his children), and he opposes homosexuality (and refuses to practice it if a homosexual himself). That's a significant set of commitments.

This rests on a bizarre view of love. Christians do not begin with the axiom "God exists" and deduce their love for relatives and spouses from it. Love for other people arises from what we know about them and from the interactions we have had with them, and so is able to survive a change in worldview. This is why people do not go on killing sprees upon deconverting from Christianity.

That said, any moral code, except perhaps a code accepted at random and without justification, is in principle vulnerable to a new discovery. At the least, any moral code is vulnerable to the discovery, in philosophy, of a new conceptual truth that overturns it.

Again, you could say the same thing about any moral code. To justify an action under moral code x, you need only believe that you fulfill x's requirements for acting morally. Christians have the distinct advantage of having a list of concrete rules to obey, as well as an abstract framework within which to understand those rules and adapt to novel situations.

What obligation does the atheist have to protect the environment? And why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to the Christian?

Even if there were no moral obligation for the Christian to protect the environment, doesn't he have a pretty obvious pragmatic reason to do so?

To God, granted, but I don't know where you get pastors or husbands. And Christians see a number of people who stood up to politicians as heroes - just look at either of the Martin Luthers.

Well God is this fire and brimstone kinda guy right?  Genocide, sacrifice, pillars of salt, raining sulfur?  Right?  So the one time he finds a girl he likes (some chick called Mary) and sleeps with her he has a son.  BAM - he's mister responsibility now.  No more laying waste to the holy land, no more drowining everyone he doesn't like.  He's got to set a good example.  What happens?  His son ends up a peace loving liberal that hangs around dudes all the time instead of smiting the wicked.

Gays just remind god of the son that chained him to a mild-mannered life.  I reckon that's it 

...which is why I didn't quote him as saying "moral perspective." If you actually read his post, it's obvious from the context that he could only have meant "moral view." He goes on to talk about moral prohibitions against abortions and masturbation, after all.