Ex-theists are often like ex-smokers, sanctimonious and insufferable.

[Pyrrho]

Religions are all poisonous.  They all corrupt thinking.  They all depend on people not thinking clearly, and so they oppose clear thinking.

And that should be opposed.  Getting people to be unreasonable and believe nonsense, they are opening the door for the person to believe any other nonsense that they might stumble upon.  After all, they have been trained to avoid critical thinking, and so they are ready to believe other bullshit as well.  That preparation for believing bullshit is very dangerous and should be opposed.

If you replace "religion" by "other religions" (and pretend you were a Christian or something) your argument sounds exactly like what fundamentalist preachers say.

If they said that, they would by lying.  They advocate things like having faith (i.e., belief unsupported by evidence), just like the others.  It is the same type of reasoning, regardless of which religion we are discussing.  The problem is not so much the content of the beliefs, but how they are acquired.  Faith is a dangerous thing.  If you want, we can have a separate thread on that subject.  A more lengthy discussion of the issue is in an essay by William Kingdon Clifford called "The Ethics of Belief":

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

I will be happy to discuss that essay with you, in a thread devoted to that purpose.  Just let me know, and I will start one just for you.

Seriously, people need to start thinking before writing, you're basically advocating the inferiority of a group of people based on the fact that they have one tiny difference between them and you.

That seems so bizarre I hardly know how to respond.  But since you are not the only one who seems confused about my meaning, I presume that there must be something defective in my manner of expression in my earlier post(s).

But I will respond to your post as written.  Suppose we were to consider two groups of people:  Those who are murderers, and those who are not.  Is that one little difference enough to make some judgement about the inferiority of one of those groups?

But let us be a bit more serious.  I am not saying that someone who is not religious must be a better person than one who is religious.  I defy you to find me saying such a thing in this thread.  Or, indeed, in any thread, excepting possibly something stated in jest.

All religious people are not thinking properly.  That does not entail the idea that nonreligious people must be thinking properly.  And it does not mean that a nonreligious person cannot be completely reprehensible.

Frankly, I have no idea why you are supposing that I have the ideas that you evidently imagine me having.

Your slippery slope is ridiculous and fallacious, believing one bullshit claim doesn't mean you believe all bullshit claims, proof of that is theists who believe just one religion but not others.

And when did I state anything that contradicts that?  When have I stated that belief in one stupid thing entails belief in every stupid thing?

C'mon, where's the complex argument and studies, etc? Why should I believe your opinion (because that's what it is)? I've met far too many great theists in my life

Do you seriously imagine that I hate all theists?  My mother is a theist.  She did her best to raise me, in a manner that she thought was right and proper.  She is one of the nicest and best people I know.  But that is not due to her theism, and she would likely be nicer still if she did not have the religiously inspired bigotry she has toward some groups of people (e.g., gays, not that they would likely know it from meeting her, nor would she be stoning gays at the city gates).

You really are so far off the mark on this, I am having a hard time responding.  Were you the only person who has reacted in such a manner, I would question your reading comprehension in English, but as you are not, I can only suppose that there must be something wrong with my manner of expression previously.  And yet I do not know what it is, as I have not stated the things you seem to imagine.

- I know personal experience doesn't count as evidence, but I'm not proving anything, I'm just saying this sounds too much like a conspiracy theory for me to buy into it. The division between atheists and theists is insignificant compared to things like class and nationality. People are religious for all kinds of reason, and anyone who isn't retarded knows perfectly that religion appeals to people for many many reasons, otherwise no one would become religious in the first place - It's not a valid argument to say religion is poisonous and always opposes critical thinking because that's a hasty generalization and only serves the purpose of ridiculing - It doesn't work philosophically or scientifically - To back up your stance you would need to see every religion on earth and prove that every instance of religious thinking is anti-critical thinking.

You are now reasoning fallaciously.  Not every argument is deductive.  Inductive reasoning does not depend on an examination of every example to come to a conclusion that is reasonable.  Granted, an inductive argument does not give deductive certainty, but that does not mean that induction must be unreasonable.

People do not murder or discriminate because of not being religious.  That does not mean that they cannot do bad things for other reasons.

No, but they can murder because they hate religion. That isn't worse or better than what religious nuts do. The doctrine people claim to follow isn't nearly as important as the damage they cause - I care about people's religion as much as I care about the murderer using a knife or a gun - It has some relevance, but nowhere near as much as the damage and suffering caused to the victims .

Okay.  At what point have I advocated the killing of theists or religionists of any type?  Do you see me making up excuses for killing them?  Do you see me advocating rounding them up into concentration camps?

Sure, someone can be an evil bastard without being religious.  That is obvious enough, and no one of sense will deny it.  That, however, does not gain any ground as a defense for religion.  That does not make religion good or even neutral.