Donnie if you said to be good to your fellow man it does not make you a better person than if you yourself were a better man. See the difference? You are dictating to your fellow man to be good. By what standard ? There are good standards and there are bad standards. Christianity simply put holds bad values , bad standards and no understanding of morality that is why it has a horrible history and a horrible present. Christianity like all cults is a cult based on exclusionism and deciet. Self obsession to the point of paranioa of an imaginary god evoking behaviour is not what makes the good of a person to be good. In the scheme of things Christianity is all bad with no redeeming qualities at all despite what Christian propagandists claim. It only adds to the deciet. I dont care about the mumbo jumbo that you or anybody believes in . Its your life. Just dont lioe to me and tell me that what you believe in is good and that you are better for it when you are trying to interefere with everybody elses life. I understand the belief in god is self delusion or brainwashed delusion. I understand that to believe in god is to believe the self is god and thus superior to all else. It is crazy, psychotic , addictive and possessive. Even so most Christians should for the first time in Christian history throw away their self adulation and replace it with real rigorous reflexivety.

Here I draw the line in the sand and take Olivers assertion that Christianity undertakes a non-reflexive view of the world and put it in your terms and say that Christian philosophy and ontology has degraded into a Sodom and Gamorrah koroko of an orgy of Judgement , bias, deciet, control and persecution.

You may be a nice guy but is your weltanschauung a nice guy?

1 John 5:4 a recipe for evil.

Agnostics can not honestly contribute on the subject of spirituality in regards to any Deity. Ummm. Is not an opinion.
Atheist and believers on the other hand can always blame God for their difficulties while taking full credit for their successes and holding them up as personal triumphs.

In the absence of religion those individuals or groups who perpetuate crimes against their society will always be able to blame some system or power structure for their behavior. Do we blame all of Melbourne for the criminal activity of the crime families? Or do we separate and recognize not all of Melbourne is criminal even though the history of criminal behavior is long established in Melbourne?

And by extension do we say,"Well what do you expect. Naturally all Australians are criminals. The fruit don't fall far from the tree mate." "I don't lock my door cuz I'm afraid I'll be burgled or have my life taken. I lock my door cuz I live in Australia. Don'tcha know the difference.

Aquarivs, your simplistic interpretation of agnosticism is somewhat insulting.
It is far more than merely "umm." That implies a passive uncertainty, that agnostics have yet to choose.

I for one, am an agnostic and have made a choice - that choice is simple - there is no way to prove or disprove god. I will never know, and perhaps we are not meant to know.
Religious people see this as a cop out, while agnostics see the exact same thing in the religious. They have abrogated their responsibility as an enquiring human being with the ability to employ logic, and have hung their hat on faith - this is exactly the same for atheists.

Ultimately. a belief in god is not necessary to be a spiritual being. If anything, signing up to a particular doctrine inhibits your ability to analyse other faiths and consider other aspects of spirituality.

Consider this: the notion of reincarnation. I see nothing to confirm or deny this concept, yet if I peek beyond the bounds of a particular set of rules, I can see a similar alternative, which binds both science and spirituality.

We know according to the rules of conservation, ultimately matter and energy can be transferred, but not destroyed.
After death, we know the matter from our bodies will be recycled to form a myriad of things - trees, animals, hell, even concrete. Reincarnation requires me to subscribe to a notion that my being as a single unit will become something akin to a mouse, or another person based on a concept of morality

"if you said to be good to your fellow man it does not make you a better person than if you yourself were a better man"
That i can agree with. It is certainly a matter of acts more than it is words. The Christ figure evidently did set an example in his life and actions which were far more telling than the words he spoke or maxims he put forth.

"Christianity simply put holds bad values , bad standards and no understanding of morality"
Well, if we're to get into an arguement over this it would require getting into the nuts and bolts of what "Christianity" is exactly and what merely pertains to it. Fundamentally it is the story and doctrine laid down by various people based on the life and teachings of the one named Jesus contained in a compilation called the Bible.
Then you have the numerous groups of people organised around these tenets and the various interpretations and practices that they have adopted. Eg. the catholics, the protestant denominations, the fringe groups, and the other cults and assemblages that exist.
To talk of Christianity as a nebulous mass does not allow for this differentiation and will not expose the real roots of the atrocities done in the name of God and Christianity that you object to.
There is the doctrine, there are the adherents, there are the ways the adherents interpret or manipulate the doctrine, and there are the actions the adherents do and if in accordance with this or not. Where it goes awry is in one of these areas.
The doctrine may be ambiguous but not inherently bad.
Perhaps an ambiguity exists to highlight the intentions of the adherents?

"1 John 5:4 a recipe for evil. "
Case in point. Does it really spur evil? You have interpreted that it does and object to it, which possibly shows you are not evily inclined?

This discussion is all very well, but it's not getting me any closer to deciding whether Dumbledore is dead!

"Agnostics can not honestly contribute on the subject of spirituality in regards to any Deity." - aqvarious

Are you saying that an Anglican who wonders [but is not sure] that the RCs are correct about transubstantiation, has nothing to say about divinity? What about an RC questionning that a [human] Sovereign can start can start a [religious body] Christian church?

Questioning can also be at the heart of theism [not the blind Sells brand],but, rather, as in Sic et Non [Abelard]. Abelard [deeply religious] championed questionning.

More broadly, David Hume thought in terms of agnosticim and spirituality.

In the first and centuries centuries, the Christians were the atheists and agnostics, doubting polytheism. And you believe this has nothing to do with divinity?

The problem with modern churches is they and their flock "indwell" (Polanyi)in doctrine and performance. IF a god does exist, denominalisationalism could have them miss the object study.

--One must question and hold conclusions tentatively--