Religious people are not more moral than atheists

yeah, best to keep him trapped here

well put mate, couldn't have said it better myself

I am glad I am not the only one who notices.

What's happening bran?

Maybe I can help

I am good, thank you.

It's not that we jump down his throat, he misunderstands what an atheist or even an agnostic is

I know...

I've studied religion for years, taken a bunch of classes in University and written several papers. The history of religion and the complexity of the issue is rarely understood. The hateful religion bashers are worse than the religious because they are so arrogant in their viewpoint, to vilify someone so completely for their beliefs presupposes that everything you know is true and that you hold no false beliefs. Not every religious person is a violent fanatic and not every atheist hates religious people, but usually if you find yourself at the extreme end of the spectrum hating the other side odds are you aren't very smart.

That is not true. I gave you an alternative perspective to consider (mine) and the reply I got was essentially that I was wrong and instead of explaining why I was wrong, I received a reply about how another user was right. He claims to be an agnostic atheist, but I have read about information contrary to what he is saying and you agree with. Also, another user talked about all of Christianity and I let him know that their are differing branches in the form of a question. The response I received to that was that everyone I was referring to are not important enough to be discussed and I have an ego problem for pointing out that unethical method of persuasion.

The rudeness and close-mindedness in this thread are disgusting.

Why don't you actually try reading the responses you are getting?

First I never made a claim about all of Christianity. All I did was bring up that there are different branches of it, there was no need to mention the ones you said because they had already been mentioned. If you actually read the conversation you would understand that.

Why do you insist that people take your view into consideration when you give no reason why we should? You have terrible reading comprehension, you're arrogant, self centred, and a pretentious pseudo intellectual. Why can't you accept that sometimes you might actually be wrong? Being told you're wrong is not the same as insulting you. You're the only person in this thread who is being close-minded.

That's not true at all.

An agnostic is an atheist and is not a religious person. You claimed Agnostics were believers? Where was i wrong? I wasn't rude, i was making counter points to yours btw

Actually, I did read this conversation. That is why I asked you that question in the first place. You clearly said "Christianity," not "some of Christianity." Do not try and change your words. You know what you said.

What you are doing now is called revisionism and also it seems to be coming from a defensive mechanism. Good luck with that.

A belief of of a lack of knowledge is just that. To explain, Christians often convert into this religion by making one see things they already know about in a different perspective. For example, an individual may have a challenging life in which they meet adversity and hate each step of the way. In response, they begin to do wicked things as well. When they are at a weak point in their lives whether that be physically, financially, or socially it all part of the same plan in a Christian perspective. The Christian missionary or pastor will say that their hardships were a test by Most High perhaps by mentioning the similar trials Job went through. Furthermore, he or she will mention that all that hardship was part of a plan the Most High has for them and now is the time to join this religion and things will begin to improve. Things often do, so it is a convincing argument to some. The important part, as I said before, is perspective.

Notice how I didn't say "all of Christianity" either.

I'm not going back on anything. What I said is what I meant. You just have too many problems with your reading skills to understand the importance of context.

Yes, you do not need to describe the entirety of the religion in detail for someone to believe you are talking about it all. That is partially why there are so many religious apologists. Whether or not you meant that is up to you to clarify and you have, finally. However, you did it extremely rudely which is why I mentioned the apparent defensive mechanism.

It is exactly like saying "homosexuals are stupid, bad, etc." (which I would not and that is besides the point) and then saying you have an ego problem for thinking I was talking about the entire group.

Probably because he deserves it.

I'll just like to point out again that you're the only person to not understand what I meant.

And no it's nothing like saying homosexuals are stupid. If I said "Christians are homophobic, sexist and racist" I'd see where you are getting at, but I didn't say that.

It has nothing to with any plan, it has to do with what they have done. An agnostic does not believe in god, they just take a stance and say they don't know. Nobody that believes in god is an agnostic, because it's just a subgroup or a stance of knowledge and not belief. If you believe in a deity, you are a theist. not an agnostic

Yes, it is. It is using information of past to dictate what it means now for everyone who identifies with those groups.

Homosexuality is linked with higher I.Q.

http://www.academia.edu/724556/Gender_Nonconformity_Intelligence_and_Sexual_Orientation

Smarter people practice safer sex.

In the past, there was a smear campaign against homosexuals and homosexuality in the United States linking them with the introduction of HIV into the human race and its spread.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/

In my words, people with diseases who do not practice safer sex are not exactly the smartest people and if they are in possession of high I.Q.s they are criminals which is worse because they are willingly spreading diseases.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/violence-and-homosexuality/

If one were to say that supposed sort of statement and say why, there would be reasons that they accept it as true of all homosexuals and homosexuality. i.e. One could say "homosexuality is bad because of all these things." Now, homosexuality is distinctly different from Abrahamic religions in that they it is not doctrines. It is a lifestyle. That lifestyle in practice (like heterosexuality in practice) has certain documented consequences. They do not represent all homosexuals, though like your message stated sexism, slavery, and racism represent Abrahamic religions. There was nothing to say to the contrary. What a group did in the past or what some still do is not representative of what is occurring now. There are more kinds of those religions than ever before. That is the proof and the message that I hope you understand from all this.

It is the year 2015 and we are on the eve of a technological revolution. Society should be moving the match that in stride instead of messages that can be interpreted to mean all of a group because there was no actual separating wording. Finally, if only a single person speaks out against something, that does not mean they alone one care. They might simply be the only one willing to. There are users who are not confrontational whatsoever.

That is your opinion and others assert something different.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I never said religion is bad?

Do you like making a fool of yourself or are you so out of touch with reality that you are imagining things and projecting your delusions onto me?

You implied sexism, racism, and slavery are bad (Parts of Abrahamic religions). Later you expounded on that implication. There is nothing deluded about that, I must tell you. It would behoove you to write with your audience in mind.

So sexism, racism and slavery aren't bad? Do I really need to imply that they are bad, anyone apart from slave traders can tell you that, and even then they probably are a little bit self aware that they're the bad guys.

Let me get this straight. You said parts of those religions are bad, but the religions are not. In your words, "It cancels itself out." Also, you did not mean all of Christianity and Islam you were talking about; You were only referring to the Bible and Quran.

Lets put it this way. If you can say Christianity is good because it encourages charity, can you not also then say it is bad because it encourages racism, sexism and homophobia? Sure you can simply not follow the parts that are bad, but you can also not follow the parts that are good. So religion as a whole can be neither good or bad. You can have good religious people, but you can also have bad religious people, just like you can also have good atheists and bad atheists.

That's why I said context matters. This was a discussion about whether religion makes people good or not. I wasn't bringing up the bad parts of religion to say that religion is bad, just that it isn't good.

What kind of Christianity are you referring to?

What if I'm our savior

@BranKetra: well the first part is, the second part is fact

The second part is an opinion as well.

ag·nos·tic

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Based on that definition, agnosticism is a belief considering "believes" in the present-tense verbal form of "belief." Belief is a synonym of opinion.

you trade behavior for a mansion on a street of gold in a super exclusive pearly gated community.

so yeah, that makes you super duper moral.

Exactly, which means that person is an atheist. That person has no belief or knows.

What is an Agnostic?

An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know for that any gods exist or not, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist. This is also a simple concept, but it may be as widely misunderstood as atheism is. One major problem is that atheism and agnosticism both deal questions about the existence of gods, but whereas atheism involves what a person does or does notbelieve, agnosticism involves what a person does or does not know. Belief and knowledge are related but nevertheless separate issues.

There's a simple test to tell if one is an agnostic or not. Do you think you know for sure if any gods exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic. Do you think you know for sure that gods do not or even cannot exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic. Everyone who can't answer "yes" to one of those questions is a person who may or may not believe in one or more gods, but since they don't also claim to know for sure they are agnostic — an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

we're fucked

That seems to be a definition at odds with Oxford.

@BranKetra: No, it's the common wording of an agnostic

@BranKetra: Hey Bran, sorry for the off-topic but do you know anything about Sefrix? Been trying to talk to him but can't find him. (Reply in PM if needed) Thanks ^_^

@toast_burner: First of all, you still have to clarify your claim how Islam promotes Slavery and Sexism. I agree with the homphobia part, yes it does with it's own reasons that probably only I can believe. But clarify the others for me.

@softwaregeek said:

Never trust a person who thinks he is beyond saving.

Man talking bullshit is super easy...

huh?

That common wording is contrary to the Oxford dictionary definition which agrees with my opinion. There is no need to be dogmatic.

Sure. I sent you a PM.

You said religion sucks because whenever someone commits a sin he can easily repent and forget about it. (which is not true.) I said atheism sucks because whenever someone commits a sin since there's no one to forgive him he will fall to to the darkest depths. If he's a lonely killer he will kill again because he thinks there's no one that can save him (since he doesn't believe in a god). If he's a lonely robber he will rob again and then turn into a killer because he thinks there's no one that can save him. (which is again not true)

Basically you said some people think they can clear their conscience only by repenting (a minority of religious people) and I said some people think they can't do anything about their conscience because it's way too corrupted now (a minority of atheists).

Admit that we both talked crap.

How about not continuing the antagonizing of others because of belief or the absence of it?

@BranKetra: again, you're either an agnostic-theist or agnostic atheist. You can't just call yourself agnostic. So it means you're either a theist or atheist

@The_Last_Ride: Agnosticism is related with, but not limited to religion.

uhhh....no. I just think religious people actually do more wrong things because they have this false belief that there's a god that will forgive them for it and everything will be okay. So it's easier for them to clear their conscience whereas an atheists don't have that luxury and are probably less likely to commit the wrong doing in the first place. Probably studies that prove my point too. I get that people have their beliefs...I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem when their beliefs effect my life. I don't believe them to be morally superior to anyone else.

@The_Last_Ride: Agnosticism is related with, but not limited to religion. You are contradicting yourself. At first, your argument was centered on "agnostic" meaning without knowledge and then you used that lack of knowledge as the foundation for knowledge (fact). That does not make sense.

no i have said the same thing the whole time. Agnostic just means you're "knowledge". So if you call yourself an agnostic, you're basicly saying you don't know and therefore you are an atheist. Jeez... If you're not, you are just a christian or whatever. You can call yourself an agnostic theist, but you are then related to a religion like Christianity or Islam for example

Dictionaries are changed and updated all the time. They are not absolute (and languages are always evolving). And they are not involved in the realm of philosophy, where this discussion actually lies.

Resorting to a dictionary definition to prove an argument is a really weak means of backing up an argument regarding the nature of something.

In your own words, define what the nature of "agnosticism" would be. And don't just tell me it's "somebody who doesn't know what they believe". Describe what agnosticism is.

I just thing atheists actually do more wrong things because they don't believe that there's a god that can forgive them for their crimes so once they fall they see no way out of it and so they perpetuate their wrong-doings. So it's harder for them to change and become good people again whereas a religious persons hopes that God will forgive him and that he can become a good man once again. Probably studies prove my point too. Especially studies regarding suicide and depression. I get that atheists have their opinions... I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem when their opinions are based on misinterpretation of religious beliefs. I don't believe them to be morally superior than religious people.

See? Talking bullshit is easy.