Here are thoughts I've heard from hard-core Evangelists...

Examples of Atheist murders (i.e. those whom did not kill in god's name and who's total number of murders far exceed the escapes of organized religions throughout history are: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao.

The claim is that they were all Atheists and they killed numbers of people that can't even be compared to those killed in the name of gods.

There doesn't exist a way to test it

Knowing this though, I think that without any god to use as support for personal choices a person may not feel as right to act against the rest of humanity.  Skepticism saves lives.

(A person can rationally understand morality and reasons to do good; a person can rationally understand immorality and reasons to not do bad...  without any gods)

*edits*

This isn't going to surprise you in the least, dear Cap'n:

Human behavior is almost always multivalent. Religion is just one possible valance.

Is religion the root cause for any given action of a group or individual? Likely no.

Root causes are more likely to be our most basic instincts for survival; access to resources, sex, social concerns and the like. Social/cultural constructs then act on those basic instincts to derive specific patterns of action and intent.

People going to church/mosque/synagogue likely do it as a member of an in-group social instinct, with the religion being only the common factor that produces the in-group.

Suicide bombers are more likely to be initially encouraged by cultural/in-group pressures first, with religion being not an individual valance but a cultural facet. (This, to me, makes clear why suicide bombers and their ilk can be educated, intelligent, and from non-impoverished areas.)

More generally, religion is often an afterthought and played little if any role in the decision. "Thank God for this wonderful opportunity." uttered by someone with a new job they like was unlikely to be following any religious tenets when they were seeking the job - and if they were it wasn't part of the actual decision making process but some ritual (such as prayer) they thought would aid in controlling random factors. Even those seeking religious work likely started with a more basic need first - "I want to help" "I want to be special" "I want to lead", etc.

In learning about this, I also learned that the method for peeling back these onion layers is by starting with the questions "What's common across cultures? What's common with similar species? What does the archaeological evidence say about older and pre-history cultures?"

I hope this helps some.

Isn't this a permutation of the Hitchens challenge? That is, to find an example of a good deed that could be done only by a believer (difficult) and then find a terrible deed that could only be done by a believer (easy).

Now, I'll admit that the challenge is really an example of a kind of confirmation bias, but your question hints at the answer.

I would say that you are mostly correct about religious people personalizing their beliefs, but only some of them do this. I have read from multiple surverys that about 50% of people in the US believe that we were created by God in our present form about 6-10,000 years ago. This is obviously caused by religion. If these people did not have their religion to tell them what to believe, they would likely be more apt to believing in facts, rather than believe things that have actually been disproven.

Some people personalize religion a lot and some only take it literally. Most lie somewhere in between, but the problem is that religion still causes people to be irrational in their beliefs at the very least. Perhaps people who do bad acts in the name of religion would have done them anyway, but that is beside the point. Religion is lying. Religion supports irrational thinking and supports people not using their brain to approach moral dilemmas. Some may not follow what religion supports completely, but the religions themselves still support doing only what it tells you to.

What if people went to ethics and morality classes every sunday, rather than going to church? How do you think that would effect society? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

To those who bring up evil atheists like stalin and mao, I would say that they were irrational. Perhaps they were atheists, but so what? I am subscribing to rationality and that has led me to atheism. Rationality is what we need more of, not just atheism. Theism is irrational, however, and that means turning people away from it would make society more rational. I believe that we can have all the moral benefits of religion, but through rational means.

Mutual.

When I said, "kind of confirmation bias", that's what I meant. 

But that wasn't the challenge. Suicide bombing is not carried out by secularists, to the best of my knowledge. You may know of an example, but I don't.

Oh, I see.

Also, I didn't think of the Tamil Tigers, the most obvious example of secular suicide bombing, as they were one of the first groups to use it. I take back my earlier comment, as it was obviously wrong.

I never read Hitchens, but does he offer a method to differeniate?

 Pineapple, I'd like to first tell you that in my spare moments over the last week, I've been thinking a lot about my position on religion and "cause."  Specifically, in light of some very interesting research by a friend's colleague, I'm reconsidering my stance on cognitive dissonance.  I'm still waiting to get my hands on the study itself, but I have it on very good authority that this friend of a friend has demonstrated that like almost everything else in human brains, tolerance for cognitive dissonance is a sliding scale.

In other words, some people simply cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance.  Others don't even notice it when it's right in front of their face, and it causes them no mental distress at all.  Most people, it appears, fall somewhere in the middle.  They can accept some cognitive dissonance but only to a certain level of credulity.

This finding may significantly alter my beliefs about religion and society, although in what ways, I'm not sure.

In any case, to your question:

In a nutshell, I think you need to be more specific with your definition of "cause."  In most cases, it's simply not correct to say that a single thing in a person's consciousness "caused" them to act in a certain way.  Supposing that religious intolerance causes increased expression of ethnocentrism, does increased expression of ethnocentrism also cause increased religious intolerance?  I'd say definitely so.  So which is the cause and which is the effect?

Furthermore, if poverty causes people to want to reach out to a higher power, does poverty cause religion which causes religious intolerance which causes ethnocentrism?

You see what I'm getting at?  For any action a person takes, there's a huge matrix of environmental and internal factors which all are part of the "cause."  When we single one out, we are usually trying to say "this factor is a big enough deal that we ought to take notice."  

I know this isn't exactly answering your question, but I think I see where your mind is going, and I think you're just going to frustrate yourself if you continue going this way.  This all ties into our discussions about the effect of religion on society in general.  For instance, when I say that secularism is directly tied to egalitarian society and increased societal function, I'm saying that within the incredibly complicated matrix that is human existence, the relative weight of secularism in determining the nature of a society is significant enough that we can point to it and say (colloquially) "See... secularism leads to egalitarianism."  It's not a math formula.  It's a tidy little conceptualization of secularism as a "cause" of societal health.

Then his challenge is pretty much stacked in his favour.

I bet he ignores the given reasons/excuses for the former part of his challenge, but accepts them for the latter.

Like I said, I never read him, but what would be his argument if say Ray Comfort said that the Red Cross worker was motivated by their faith?

What I would assume is that he would point out people who do it for secular reasons and what those reasons are.

Where would that be?

My argument would be the majority of people who do X thing are Theist, because the majority of people are Theists.

There are no really compelling secular reasons to pray before you eat. But then again that reminds me of a quote

"As long as there are algebra tests in schools, there will also be prayer."

This is in relation to my "Is violence ever justified?" topic. [Which spawned this topic]

Just because you or Hitchens can't see a compelling justification, doesn't mean that there isn't one, you most likely don't live in the region where the action takes place, and know nothing of the enviromental conditions that could spawn the action.

Okay, let's start:

1] Believing that there's a God

2] Praying

That's all I can think of, seeing as I know that some atheist attend church for the social cohesion.

Also, just because an atheist won't do something for the same reason that a Theist will, does not mean that they will not do it. [Reference my point that Theists tend to personalize everything into their God/religion]

3) Ritualized regularly occurring meetings for worship

4) Acceptance of dogmatic morals based on the word of an unproven law-giver

5) Tithing

On the other hand... depending on your definition of praying, certain atheistic but never-the-less woo-woo belief systems do incorporate prayer or magic (spells) or meditations to attract "good things", etc. Similarly, doubt can be cast on (3), (4), and (5).

Perhaps the only thing that really does go on the list is (1)

I assume you've read Hitchens, what does he say about it? That's what I was asking, a chapter in his book that addresses this or something.

Which is pretty much what I'm asking.

What I'm asking for is a method of which to differieniate whether or not somebody would have not done what they have done sans belief. To my knowledge, no such method exists.

I've created several topics related to this recently and unfortunatly they didn't really bear any fruit.

I can assure you there is a method behind my madness.

It's fairly obvious from his method of presentation that he takes correlative information as sufficient to suggest the causative - It's clearest in "God is Not Great" in that he presents a historical and political history with emphasis on the involved religious beliefs with conclusions that point toward the religious as causative. (Not always, he does relegate it to influential in some cases.)

If I may, to directly address your topic; There is really no way to assess the level of influence of religious belief on individual behavior - at least not as a monolithic valance. We can probably safely gage effects of discrete elements of that belief, if those elements are clear. Attitudes toward women's place in society, homosexuality, and the like are good examples. However, the more subtle aspects as belief in a god, afterlife, and that sort of thing ... well, you'd essentially have to raise twins in separated controlled environments to start getting any idea. That's never going to get past an ethics committee.

Culturally, however, it's clearer. Mapping correlation toward a culture's collective choices to religious mores and dogma is likely sufficient to suggest the causative.

That is; we can say, for instance, that inquiry into reality was hampered by cultural (that is, religious) resistance to knowledge that would threaten the validity of dogma. However, we can't be sure if any given individual chose not to make such inquiries because of their belief in that dogma, or because of fear of reprisal, or if they simply had no interest.

You've actually made an important point about revealed religion in general, namely, that you cannot separate it from the social milieu through which it is filtered.  Then there are other factors, such as population.  Perhaps if you reduced the population of the United States to equal that of Canada, then that would bring the 53% down to 22%.

True. The question is limitted in scope so as to exclude the reasons and motivations of Atheists or for that matter, all people.

As such, the real question is ot what motivates Theists or Atheists, but what motivates people.

Without an understanding that
point, the answer to the question is as meaningless as only asking what motivates Atheist mass killers.

To attempt to even obtain a meaningful answer as to what motivates Theists, one must first ask the question of what motivates mass killers, serial killers, and just plain killers, without regard to their religious or lack of religious beliefs. Subsequently, it would be meaningful to ask IF the motivations of Theist killers are in fact any different than the motivations of Atheist killers.

The question as asked implicitly assumes that the motivations of Theist killers are different than Atheist killers.

One could simply respond by saying the underlying reasons which result in the motivations of Theist killers
is no different than the underlying reasons which result in the motivations of Atheist killers.

In short, the question asked is myopic, as one could simply say there's nothing peculiar to Theistic killers, as they might well and I believe they kill for the same undelylig reasons as ALL killers do... For example, they may be motivated by self-interest based on mistaken/delusional beliefs,
or they might be motivated by
some personal or common philosophical belief(s).

Question the question.

Don't assume the question is ba ed on a meaningful understanding of anything.

You might even learn
to think for yourself when you apply "critical thinking"
to questions, not just answers.

Screw "the social milieu through which it is filtered".

That is a condition that always will exist.

The only important question is whether you personally have the intelligence to think independently of the masses, or you accept on faith what you read, and hear
from Faux News.

But the thing with trends is that, as I mentioned before, the majority of the population is Theist, which is an extremely large sample compared to the countries with the majority atheist.

Which brings us back to square one.......

Hit the wrong damn key. Soz if this appears toe a double post.

Atheism is not trendy, organized, nor a cultural influence in lots of place
where some (mass) killings occurred by Atheists.

Therefore, trends, organized religion, and cultural influence are all superficial
explanations to the underlying reasons and motivations of killers.

As posted before. the question and responses referring to such superficial "stuff" remain fundamentally flawed and will not produce reasonable answers.

Question the question, not just responses.

"Capeetan Obvious", eh?

That's preciously my point. Theism is NOT uniform, yet it should be.

We should see two people in the same pew, have more or less the same views.  Yet their personality, their exposure to other cultures override this.

Which brings into question whether the trend is the result of religion, or if religion just conforms to the trend.

Yes, of course it is. It's also inflammatory. Hitchens is a very entertaining writer, but doesn't hold himself to necessarily dry logical argument. He's not "wrong", he's just being thought-provoking.

You've got to be kidding me, right?  Have you read the Bible?  It's a serious question.  I don't know if you have.  To say that a hundred people ought to independently invent the same religion after reading the bible is downright wacky.

LOL

Anyway, take my word for it, or any other atheist who's actually read it.  The thing is damn near incomprehensible.  It makes no sense, and certainly doesn't give us a blueprint for what the one true church is supposed to look like.

That's why there are over 15,000 recognized Christian denominations in the world.  And no, they aren't even remotely similar across the board in even one tenet.