I am currently working on a research project regarding deconversion from Christianity. Several colleagues and I are looking at stories/interviews of 50 people who had professed Christianity but now reject this.
In this context, I was very interested by this story about William Lobdell--an evangelical Christian who took the religion beat for the LA Times and not believing in the existence of a God.
As he tells it, and I encourage you to read the story, he was overwhelmed by the wrong things Christians were doing. In particular, he was shaken by the Catholic priest ual scandals but also by Christian televangelists' mismanagement of money.
This story raises an interesting question--what did he, and others, expect? Yes, Christians have done despicable things, but does this mean that an Christian so doing is evidence against God? Must all Christians be perfect, or at least pretty good, for Lobdell to believe?
Various posts that I have published (plus plenty by others) make a pretty good case that Christians have less ual "immorality" than others + they use money more responsibly. But, there are exceptions of Christians doing very badly at both.
As such, why would these exceptions matter?
To take another angle, why not gauge the irreligious by the same standard? I would assume that plenty of child molesters and white-collar criminals have no active religious faith.