@Rethink, @Bathroom,
i was highlighting the stupidity of your debating capabilities thats all. Only 6 year olds indulge in such logic. 
And when you mention medications, not all have been good. Vioxx killed 60K people. Now super bugs are feared due to over use of antibiotics. So when you bring medications into the argument, what exactly is your point remains to be seen. Many medications have been discovered by Christians. Religion teaches Science is also a creation of God. When you go to a Church, they do not tell you not to take medications. They also do not advice you to jump off a cliff. Far from it, they advice stuff like to forgive people, pray for those who persecute you, etc. 

@Rethink,
If i tell you i am a multi millionaire, all you need is to see me living in a multi million dollar mansion, driving around in an expensive lamborghini, etc. I do not have to show you my bank balance. If you were smart, you would ask me instead how to become rich like me and i would teach you the way. 
God represents the Unknown and is accessed through faith. Among believers, we have already proven the existence of God. Holy books talk of faith in God to experience. In fact in Hinduism, you hear of people meditating for eons to experience. God. So really, it not like a candy you talk about. If God was like candy, then there would be no need for religion nor faith.

@Rethink,
many people do not murder and rape also because of the fact that they will be jailed for that. Not necessarily just because it is a bad thing to do. 

@Kiddo,
Atheist say "There is NO God."
Agnostic says "I am not sure about that. It is difficult to know"
Agnostic Theist "There is God. But difficult to understand with our knowledge"

Stalin was an Atheist. Agnostics do not side with Atheists. Agnostic Atheists also do not side with Atheists. I am an Agnostic myself but i am flexible, i can debate like an Agnostic Theist. I see many merits of religion so i support it. Now to answer your question. Lets say my father told me to study hard and get a good career. He adviced me not to do drugs. Then I fail to study hard and become a drug addict. I am still my father;s son but you cannot say that i have been a good son. Nor can you say that my father was bad. But had i been a studious son and passed my exams with flying colours, you can make 2 conclusions. My father was a good father. He always was a good father. But i am a good son too because i followed my fathers advice. So unless my father had adviced me to do drugs and kill people, you cannot blame him. Churches do not teach you to kill people. Buddhists also do not do that. Hindu temples also do not teach that. 

@____bro,
yes i would take his upbringing into consideration. That is called scientific analysis. If you want to prove Atheists can do good without religion then you really have a great deal to prove. At least in current times. You have to prove that the particular Atheist had nothing to do with religion all his life. You have to dig up his parents religion and prove that they also had nothing to do with religion. And then lastly, you have to prove that the society they grew up in also had nothing to do with religion. So you are looking at an Atheist, with Atheist parents in an Atheist society doing their good. With that you can make a wholesome argument for me. But trust me from a sociological perspective, you would still have more on your plate to prove because they are not easy to convince, they will look at the whole family tree, including grandparents. You cannot blame them, after all they have to justify. You do have to admit sociology plays a big part.