You said: "We try to make it clear that it is not inevitable that someone who believes in evolution will commit violence. However, if an education system proposes that there are no moral absolutes, then, logically, the one who commits violence has some justification for their actions"

Well, that doesn't explain why the majority of convicts in jail profess to be Christian.

A more logical argument would be that a religious position, which by definition transcends logic, absolves the holder from ANY rational restriction on their actions.

I've learned from long experience that when someone claims to be a Christian, to put my hand on my wallet and walk away.

This is not to say that all Christians are dishonest.  But religion has zero effect on a person's integrity, morality or ethics and can, in fact, more easily justify wrong from necessity as a good thing.

Paging Mister bin Laden, Mister Torquemada and Mister McVeigh...

Beware the sin of pride.

---

You said: "We try to make it clear that it is not inevitable that someone who believes in evolution will commit violence. However, if an education system proposes that there are no moral absolutes, then, logically, the one who commits violence has some justification for their actions"

Well, that doesn't explain why the majority of convicts in jail profess to be Christian.

I am not aware that “the majority of convicts in jail profess to be Christian.” This is certainly not the case in the UK, and my comment was made as a reply to a UK citizen, from a UK citizen. Therefore your comment is a red herring. It is certainly the case in the UK that many prisoners become (or claim to be) Christians after they have been sentenced. This is a testimony to the hard work of Christian chaplains, and the re-offending rate among prisoners who turn to Christ is much less (though, regrettably, not zero) than among those who don’t.

Sadly, Christians around the world have been imprisoned for their faith.  This is nothing new, as evidenced by biblical characters such as Joseph, Paul, Silas, and even Jesus.

A more logical argument would be that a religious position, which by definition transcends logic, absolves the holder from ANY rational restriction on their actions.

What an extraordinary statement considering this likely comes from an atheistic position that denies that an immaterial world exists! On such a basis, where is logic in this material world? I realize this places you in a predicament where if you admit logic exists, which is not material, then you are opening up the possibility of an immaterial realm, thereby giving credence to the possibility that God may then exist.

Let us apply a little logical analysis to your statement, to see where it takes us.

A more logical argument…

This implies that your statement has greater logic than mine; that it is logical for someone who commits violence to justify their violence on the grounds that there are no moral absolutes. Such justification is frequently made by criminals. As I had already stated that I was not accusing all, or even most, evolutionists of holding such a position, but rather underlining the logic of the criminal’s self-justification, my argument stands. Therefore, it does not make sense to suggest that your argument is more logical. Statement A is not more logical than statement B, if statement B is factual.

…a religious position, which by definition transcends logic…

You have suggested that a religious position transcends logic, by definition, yet you have not given us that definition, nor cited a reference for it. Of course, I will not argue for a “religious position”—I will only argue for a “Christian position.” This is not semantics. It is the Christian position that all other religious positions are invalid. That may be a statement that you dislike, because some think it arrogant. However, it is not illogical. If religion A has beliefs B, and religion C has beliefs D, and if B contradicts D, then it is illogical to suppose that B and D are both valid positions to take. At least one of the sets of beliefs must be in error.

Although you have not cited a reference, I can suggest one for you. Professor Richard Dawkins is probably the best known “anti-religious” thinker (even though he is deeply involved in the religion of humanism). This is his “anti-religious" logic:

Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.¹

As I have pointed out elsewhere,² this is an example of the logical fallacy known as begging the question. The statement assumes evolution to be true in order to prove evolution to be true. This is supposedly one of the best examples of non-religious logic. In truth, it is far from axiomatic that a Christian position is illogical. Whether you agree with the Christian position or not is a different matter, but to claim that it is illogical to take a Christian position is itself illogical—it is especially illogical just to declare the Christian position to be illogical “by definition” without giving that definition.

…a religious position… absolves the holder from ANY rational restriction on their actions.

Again, your position lacks logic, as well as substance. What evidence do you have (other than the anecdote below) to justify this conclusion? In fact, the Christian position demands restriction on actions. It binds behaviour to the moral law. Though obedience to the law cannot save the individual, it is a necessary test of the fruitfulness of the believer, and our failure to live up to the moral law is an indication of our need for a Savior.

I've learned from long experience that when someone claims to be a Christian, to put my hand on my wallet and walk away.

I am truly sorry if you have had bad experiences with some Christians. But judging a perfect God and His Word on the basis of sinful Christians (or people claiming to be so, whether being intentionally deceptive or not)—who, by definition, claim Christ’s righteousness rather than their own—is not a good practice.  If this were logical, one can conclude that evolutionists are serial killers based on Jeffrey Dahmer. So I suggest the Bible as a place to read to evaluate Christianity.

Further, if you are insinuating that Christians are only out for money, I’d like to point out (as we have before) that Christians are usually among the most generous. Sadly, some “Christians” have not followed the dictates of the Savior, and have instead kept the donations they have solicited to further their selfish lifestyle, rather than giving them to the needy. Again, don’t judge the Word of God on what sinful people do. Rather judge it on what it says—in this case, it commands us to care for widows and orphans, feed the hungry, minister to those in jail, provide clothing to those without, etc.

This is not to say that all Christians are dishonest. 

So, what was the purpose of your allegation in the previous paragraph, which now you yourself are admitting is false? But all Christians are, or at least have been, dishonest (Romans 3:4, 23).  What is great about this is that even though we are all sinful people (even you), Christ came to save us, due to His love for us (John 3:16–18). 

But religion has zero effect on a person's integrity, morality or ethics and can, in fact, more easily justify wrong from necessity as a good thing.

Once again, I will not argue for religion—I will argue for Christianity. Yet even Dawkins suggests that Christianity produces a moral code. The anecdotal effect of Christianity on many former criminals, who have become Christians, is immense.

The role of morality or good works for a Christian is not always properly understood. One does not become a Christian by being good. The Bible tells us that our righteousness is as filthy rags. We are saved by repenting of our sins and putting our trust in Jesus as Savior. From that point on, the fact that we engage in good works and morality is the evidence (the Bible calls it “fruit”) that we really have been saved. Therefore, there is a motivation for good works among Christians. The motivation is deep love and gratitude to God. While you might theoretically think that a “saved” person could therefore live as badly as they like because they have been forgiven, in practice such behavior would prove that the individual has never really been saved at all (1 John 2:19). There is no analogous motivation for atheists to do good works. Selfishness is always going to appear as the preferable evolutionary route.  In fact, the “survival of the fittest” mentality—which is evolutionary—dominated the last century with Hitler, Stalin and so on.

Paging Mister bin Laden, Mister Torquemada and Mister McVeigh...

This is a cheap shot, and, once again, totally illogical. Bin Laden is not a Christian. He is a Muslim. I will not defend Muslim morality. Whatever anyone may say to the contrary, their god, Allah, is not the same as the God of Christians—the triune God: Jesus Christ the son, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father.

Strange that you would include Torquemada, the instigator of the Inquisition, who would have had us killed, since Protestant Christians were among his victims.

Timothy McVeigh was also no born-again Christian. He was an agnostic, with a Catholic background. McVeigh was even influenced by Nazism (which has tremendous evolutionary basis) according to CNN where they state:

One day he sent off for a book advertised in the back of a gun magazine called "The Turner Diaries."
The novel was written by former American Nazi Party official William Pierce under the pen name Andrew MacDonald. It tells the story of a gun enthusiast who reacts to the government's tightening of restrictions on private firearms by bombing a federal building. McVeigh often referred to the book and introduced it to other people he met.³
 

Beware the sin of pride.

I do not understand this patronising comment. Indeed, how can I be guilty of the sin of pride, unless you define what sin actually is? If you attempt such a definition, you will find that you and I are both sinners. But without Christ, who can redeem you from your sin?

– Paul Taylor, AiG–UK