If you need religion to make you a better person, you are not a nice person.

I get this all the time. My Christian friends tell me, “You have little understanding what a Christian is…” But I think that maybe I do. So here is my response:

You say I don't have any understanding of what a Christian is, but they're everywhere I turn: Fox “news,” The Willow Creek Community Church, Rick Warren, Benny Hinn, Brian Fischer, Exodus International, James Dobson, Focus on the Family, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner, Joe Scarborough, Megyn Kelly, Pat Robertson, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh… These are all Christians, are they not? Their lives are public, their beliefs are public, and they speak openly of them all the time.

Then I add: "You’re having this conversation with the wrong person. I’m not a Christian. I’m never going to be a Christian. I will never surrender my soul. I will always put humanity over moral codes. While some of my behavior may be unskilled, I will seek to educate myself to the ways I can be a “net-positive” to those around me, or at least “net-neutral.” So I’m an observer, watching from the outside, and what I see is devastating and unbecoming.

As a Christian, you should be having this conversation with your fellow Christians. You should be discussing who and what you want to be as human beings who call themselves Christians. Your Pope has started that conversation, and Christians in America went nuts. They’re livid that he would suggest that Jesus would have a problem with the way the rich are behaving themselves toward the poor. In suggesting that Christians should put your moral code up against the teachings of Jesus, the Pope is being publicly vilified by Christians on Fox “news” especially.

I don’t need you to tell me what a Christian is, I need you to tell yourself—and your fellow Christians—what a Christian is; because I’m observing the exact opposite of what Christians keep saying.

People are good, AND they're Christian. People are assholes, AND they're Christian. It's about who we are... the labels after that are just gravy.

Why call them? They're doing good (just watch for the hidden evils, such as allowing people to die in pain as a form of mortification of the flesh), you won't change their minds, and you'll just wind up needlessly pissing an otherwise decent person off. All this for little more than what seems like virtue signalling.

Maybe I'm just an asshole but I've said the "good because you're good" line before as well as similar lines.

It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine - people not taking credit for who they are and instead giving that credit to a god who in those same moments allowed babies to be killed by their parent, a woman to be raped, etc.

And don't even get me started when they credit God for the doctor/surgeon saving a loved ones life.

If they truly believe what they say - then anything I interject is probably a waste of time.

Let them dream on ...

I wonder if Hinduism does more or less good than Jainism.

None of the above. This question has hit a nerve and maybe just maybe it can start a non-violent dialogue.

The big problem I have with this is how does one define good? The religious do "good" because someone or something tells them to do so and if they do they will get bonus points for heaven.

When the non-religious do good there is almost always some pleasure or lack of guilt involved. I finally woke up to the evil of religion because of a misguided charity. Over the years I noticed how many charities were either self-serving or actually creating more problems than when they started. Making a problem worse is immoral (the road to hell is paved with good intentions). I did research and started to pay attention and came up with a power point presentation (a big part of which talks about overpopulation). I labeled it 'The environmental effects of charity'. Unfortunately, with this issue the messenger does count more than the message.

My son raised a similar question with me this week. A classmate posted about how she was grateful that God made it possible for her to do well in her classes this term. Her language made it sound like she could only do well because God helped her. He was frustrated because she is smart and capable and seemed to be substituting faith for confidence in her own abilities. He wanted to find a way to tell her that she did well because of her own capabilities but didn’t want to challenge her beliefs. I didn’t know how to do that either.

Really I don't care very much what others believe as long as they leave me to my beliefs.

Good is good, maybe they are just humble? I work with our local Church once a week, feeding the disadvantaged. The pastor and I have a deal, we don't try and convert each other and both agree, we will work with anyone who is doing good. As I keep reminding him, Atheists believe in Good!

Some people may have had their sense of morality enhanced by their religion. It's not a prerequisite though. I was brought up in a religious (but not fanatically so) family, so I can't really tell where my sense of right and wrong came from. I don't think religion was heavily involved, but it might have had some influence.

Its nice for someone to tell you that you're a good person. I would go that route and praise them directly.

Yes, it's one of the areas i find myself... hesitating.

But i do, in most cases, tell the person that it's not because of their religion since non-religious or atheist people do good too..

I'm not going to mess with someone doing good, for whatever reason that motivates them. That would be counter to the result I want which is to have good done. If they want to know why I do good I will tell them why I do good, which is because I'm not an a*****e. I don't need god to be good, but if they do that's their problem.

Neither. If they credit their religion, it kind od sours it for me. But I usually don't call them on it, just ignore them.

But it does depend on the deed and its timing.