Why do you believe in God?

[logical thinking]

Why do you believe in God?

What specific argument or evidence is it, that persuades you?

Can you please outline the argument or piece of evidence that you believe is the STRONGEST reason to believe in God?

For example, is it the beauty and majesty of trees? Is it the Kalam Cosmological argument? Pascal's wager? Is it that you witnessed what you believe is a miracle? Is it the fact that you think the Bible contains prophecies? Is it because it feels good to believe in something greater than yourself?

Why do you believe in God?

[JLB32168]

Oh, perfect, so we agree that the singularity always existed. Good. So that makes a creating God unnecessary. Because it's possible for things to have always existed without having been created.

That’s one logical conclusion. Of course, another logical conclusion is that God has always existed and that He did all of this stuff. You said it was absurd to conclude that a God had always existed – that everything w/o question had to have a cause. One must consider to whom s/he should defer regarding the eternal existence of something – the scientists who presumably is an expert in the field of cosmology or logical thinking.

If they can exist without being created, there's no reason to assume a God who created the universe, because the universe can exist without being created.

There’s no reason to assume that created things always existed either. Scentists posit that something always existed but they can’t explain how or why it always existed.

To argue for God, you are forced to simultaneously say that something that exists must have been created AND that something that exists does NOT need to be created. Either way you lose.

You improperly limit the choices to either/or – a fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option – that God always existed and that created things did not.

Manipulative demagogues create religions that appeal to fear and leverage on basic human decency, to control people.

You’re entitled to your opinion.

Why did man invent cigarettes if cigarettes are bad for you?

So you have no answer to the question of why man created religions since he already possessed compassion and empathy. Man created cigarettes because of addiction.

People come up with all sorts of bad ideas. Usually it's to make money.

Christianity was a liability for three hundred years when it was a capital crime. Assigning ignoble motives to a rather large and eclectic group of people serves no purpose except to evince axe-grinding – preconceived biases and prejudices.

You've asserted that miracles happened. I asserted that miracles didn't happen.

I said that miracles were only make-believe fairy tales if they didn’t occur. I made an open ended question that you have now misrepresented twice as the definitive assertion that miracles occurred. Aside from that, a spontaneous healing/remission of cancer is properly called a “miracle� since the term need not imply the existence of a supernatural entity affecting the miracle.

[polonius]

JLB posted

logical thinking wrote:
Why did man invent cigarettes if cigarettes are bad for you?

So you have no answer to the question of why man created religions since he already possessed compassion and empathy. Man created cigarettes because of addiction.

Question: How did a man become addicted to cigarettes which did not yet exist so he had to create them?

[logical thinking]

Oh, perfect, so we agree that the singularity always existed. Good. So that makes a creating God unnecessary. Because it's possible for things to have always existed without having been created.

That’s one logical conclusion. Of course, another logical conclusion is that God has always existed and that He did all of this stuff.

Sure, and another logical conclusion could be that the universe was created by Yahweh, who in turn was created by Super-Yahweh, who always existed and is uncreated.

Another logical conlcusion is that the universe was created by Yahweh, who was created by super-yahweh, who was created by super-duper-yahweh, who always existed and is uncreated.

And so on.

Why don't we just go with what there is actual evidence for (the existence of the universe), and stop creating imaginary friends who created imaginary friends who created the universe?

If they can exist without being created, there's no reason to assume a God who created the universe, because the universe can exist without being created.

There’s no reason to assume that created things always existed either.

right. Created things can't have always existed, because if they always existed there never was a time when they were created. Try to keep up, buddy. You're arguing with an imaginary opponent who's positions have nothing to do with me.

Scentists posit that something always existed but they can’t explain how or why it always existed.

Oh well, if we don't know, if we can't explain, then obviously the default answer is to assume that Peter Pan created it!

Wait, you don't agree that it was Peter Pan? Why, who do you think it was? Captain Hook? Captain Crunch? Captain Nemo? Santa? Rudolph the Red Nose Raindeer? Batman? Spiderman?

Stop making arguments from ignorance. The fact that scientists don't know all the answers, doesn't give you license to make up your own stories.

To argue for God, you are forced to simultaneously say that something that exists must have been created AND that something that exists does NOT need to be created. Either way you lose.

You improperly limit the choices to either/or – a fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option – that God always existed and that created things did not.

Sure, or maybe the universe was created, God was created, and Super God always existed. Or maybe the universe was created by God, who was created by Super God, who was created by Super Duper God.

I have lots of evidence for the universe. Do you have any evidence for God, Super God and/or Super Duper God?

No? Then why are we discussing your fairy tale beliefs?

Manipulative demagogues create religions that appeal to fear and leverage on basic human decency, to control people.

You’re entitled to your opinion.

Why did man invent cigarettes if cigarettes are bad for you?

So you have no answer to the question of why man created religions since he already possessed compassion and empathy.

It's an irrefutable fact that man possesses compassion and empathy without religion. It's irrefutable that even lower primates and other animals possess it. It cannot be denied. You have already admitted it.

Look at the hundreds of millions of atheists in the world acting compassionately today.

Whatever religion is for, is not for producing compassion and empathy in humans, because compassion and empathy is already there.

By analogy, whatever the purpose of Tupperware is, it CANNOT be to help people walk, because people can easily walk without Tupperware.

Here is the formula: If X already exists when Y is created, then Y is not needed for X to exist.

Period. Stop saying fundamentally illogical stuff.

If you are interested in why people create religions, feel free to start a thread about it. On this thread we're discussing why you believe that the Gods of thousands of religions are imaginary, but the God of your religion is real. Completely separate topic. Stop derailing the debate and tell me plainly why you believe in talking donkeys.

People come up with all sorts of bad ideas. Usually it's to make money.

Christianity was a liability for three hundred years when it was a capital crime. Assigning ignoble motives to a rather large and eclectic group of people serves no purpose except to evince axe-grinding – preconceived biases and prejudices.

That's a fair point. I'll amend my position by saying that while it's irrefutably true that religion is a useful tool for ruthless political leaders, it's not the reason why people believe in religious dogma. Gullible simple people believe in comforting fairy tales even though it is unhelpful in reality, and sometimes is downright dangerous (such as early Christianity, when it was a capital crime), because comforting lies are sometimes better than harsh truths.

I can't blame a father who just lost his son for believing the son is now in heaven. But that doesn't mean it's true.

You've asserted that miracles happened. I asserted that miracles didn't happen.

I said that miracles were only make-believe fairy tales if they didn’t occur. I made an open ended question that you have now misrepresented twice as the definitive assertion that miracles occurred.

Ah sorry. So you agree that miracles that didn't actually happen are irrelevant, and you are not saying that miracles actually happened. Then what are we talking about?

a spontaneous healing/remission of cancer is properly called a “miracle� since the term need not imply the existence of a supernatural entity affecting the miracle.

I disagree that a cancer remission should be called a miracle, but never mind. Here is the important part:

If, by your VERY WORDS, a "miracle" does not mean the existence of a supernatural entity, then you were wrong earlier in saying that miracles are evidence of a supernatural entity.

If gorillas are not evidence of bigfoot, then.... gorillas are not evidence of bigfoot!

If a cancer remission is not evidence of the supernatural, then A CANCER REMISSION IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE SUPERNATURAL.

Hello?

[JLB32168]

Sure, and another logical conclusion could be that the universe . . .

I’ll assume by your illogical argumentum ad ridiculum (mocking an argument rather than addressing it) that you don’t wish to concede a point for which you have no thoughtful rebuttal.

Why don't we just go with what there is actual evidence for (the existence of the universe), and stop creating imaginary friends who created imaginary friends who created the universe?

Whether or not they are imaginary is you declaring your opinion fact and that is an example of “begging the question� and I’m sure you know that’s illogical.

Try to keep up, buddy.

I have absolutely nothing to learn from someone who must resort to sophomoric insult to argue a point. It indicates weakness of a position and attempts to bully the opposition into silence.

I read no further than the word “buddy� and hope you didn't put too much effort into everything after. Have a nice day. [smile]

[logical thinking]

Sure, and another logical conclusion could be that the universe . . .

I’ll assume by your illogical argumentum ad ridiculum (mocking an argument rather than addressing it) that you don’t wish to concede a point for which you have no thoughtful rebuttal.

Again, just because your arguments are ridiculous, it doesn't mean that i'm committing a logical fallacy, and just because you're unable to see the substance of my argument, or choose to focus on the fact that I outline it in a humorous way, it doens't mean the substance isn't there.

It's perfectly legitimate to call into question your special pleading argument whereby you assert that a set of rules (must have been created) applies to the universe, and a different set of rules (was not created) applies to your imaginary friend.

As long as you're in the business of going beyond the universe, and speculate on the existence of imaginary entities who's attributes you're allowed to invent, it's no less legitimate for me to assert with equally scant evidence that this entity has different attributes. You're allowed to assert without evidence that God was not created. I'm equally allowed to assert without evidence that God was created by Super-God.

The broader point I'm making is that as long as there is no evidence whatsoever of God, the fairy tales I come up with are no more absurd than the fairy tales you come up with.

Why don't we just go with what there is actual evidence for (the existence of the universe), and stop creating imaginary friends who created imaginary friends who created the universe?

Whether or not they are imaginary is you declaring your opinion fact and that is an example of “begging the question� and I’m sure you know that’s illogical.

Well, let's decide which way we're gonna go.

Are we going to assume that something for which we have zero evidence is real, or that it's imaginary?

If we're going to assume it's imaginary until evidence is provided, then please provide evidence for God and until you do, it's perfectly reasonable for me to assume it's imaginary.

If we're going to assume that something is real in the absence of evidence one way or the other, then you agree that super-God and Super-Duper-God are real.

You can't talk your way out of it. Either you can produce evidence for God, or you can't. Until you produce this evidence, however silly you think my arguments for Super-God and Batman and Santa are, yours are just as bad.

Try to keep up, buddy.

I have absolutely nothing to learn from someone who must resort to sophomoric insult to argue a point. It indicates weakness of a position and attempts to bully the opposition into silence.

I read no further than the word “buddy� and hope you didn't put too much effort into everything after. Have a nice day. [smile]

Nice!

So your position is "I do have compelling evidence for the existence of god, but I refuse to present it because you called me Buddy".

Proof is in the pudding JLB.

I'll give you one last chance: Why do you believe in God?

[JLB32168]

Again, just because your arguments are ridiculous, it doesn't mean that i'm committing a logical fallacy, and just because you're unable to see the substance of my argument, or choose to focus on the fact that I outline it in a humorous way, it doens't mean the substance isn't there.

You ridiculed an argument and nothing more and that is the fallacy of argumentum ad ridiculum. The most likely reason you did this was because you would have to concede that indeed the possibility remains that the uncaused causer is an intelligent entity. I’ve noticed that on this board skeptics and/or atheists are consistently loathe to concede even the twentieth part of one poor scruple to a theist. Why is that?

It's perfectly legitimate to call into question your special pleading argument whereby you assert that a set of rules (must have been created) applies to the universe, and a different set of rules (was not created) applies to your imaginary friend.

I applied no special pleading. You said that it was absurd to think that something could have always existed and that this meant that belief in a god was equally absurd. I brought to bear the opinions of not a few scientists who do posit that something could have always existed, which of course means that belief in God isn’t the absurd impossibility you asserted it was.

The broader point I'm making is that as long as there is no evidence whatsoever of God . . .

That is a false statement. You guys routinely use “evidence� when you should be saying “conclusive evidence.� Since the rest of your statement is founded on this erroneous thinking, I don’t have to address it or any other point that speaks of “evidence� when it should be qualified as “conclusive evidence.�

Nice!

I’m not sure what’s so nice about it. You might have something intelligent to say but I’ll never read it once I read a comment that I consider rude. I’ve learned in my 40+ years of debate that one who must resort to insult doesn’t have much else to say and I should waste my time waiting for his/her to regain his/her composure.

I'll give you one last chance: Why do you believe in God?

I’ve articulated the reasons several times already. If you didn’t understand them yet then I don’t suppose you will if I do it again.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to JLB32168]

That’s one logical conclusion. Of course, another logical conclusion is that God has always existed and that He did all of this stuff. You said it was absurd to conclude that a God had always existed – that everything w/o question had to have a cause. One must consider to whom s/he should defer regarding the eternal existence of something – the scientists who presumably is an expert in the field of cosmology or logical thinking.

Logic
noun
interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable.

So let's have a look at your "logical" conclusion that God has always existed without the necessity of a prior cause. Logic is the observation and consideration of observable facts in an attempt to reach an inevitable and predictable conclusion. What we observe, without fail, is that all effects are predicated on an earlier cause. To state that logic predicts that there must be a first, an uncaused cause, is not only NOT logical, but it is a perversion of the very meaning of logic. Reaching a conclusion that is the very opposite of all that can be observed to be true and declaring it to be the final answer is entirely and completely illogical. It is contrary to the very concept of logic in fact.

There’s no reason to assume that created things always existed either. Scentists posit that something always existed but they can’t explain how or why it always existed.

It is observed that every effect is based on an earlier cause. That is what is directly observed. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that this is NOT true indelibly.

You improperly limit the choices to either/or – a fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option – that God always existed and that created things did not.

There is always the possibility of a possibility that we did not consider. This is true. And it is always possible that what we think we are observing is not what is actually occurring. Humans, being fallible, have to live with the possibility of being wrong. That does not necessarily mean that we ARE wrong, however. So we continue on following the path that seems to lead towards the truth until such time, if ever, as it should become clear that another path more accurately reflects the truth.

Manipulative demagogues create religions that appeal to fear and leverage on basic human decency, to control people.

You’re entitled to your opinion.

This is not simply an opinion. This is an observation based on actual events.

So you have no answer to the question of why man created religions since he already possessed compassion and empathy. Man created cigarettes because of addiction.

1. Laws and rules are only effective insofar as everyone cooperates and subscribes to them. Human laws, being devised by humans, often to favor one level of society while working against the perceived interests of other levels of society. Human laws can be broken, often with impunity. Laws attributed to a god however, exist in an elevated status, and can never be broken with impunity. Eventual judgement and punishment is pronounced to be unavoidable. Individuals break and defy the laws of God/the gods at their immortal peril.

2. The presumed existence of a supernatural Being or Beings serves to answer questions on the nature of natural events which seem to be supernatural in nature. At least until such time as the natural causes can be determined.

3. Living in an apparently capricious and indifferent universe surrounded by events that seem to be entirely random and supernatural in nature can be intimidating. Reaching the conclusion that these seemingly supernatural events are the result of a supernatural Being or Beings opens the possibility that this Being or Beings can be placated through right actions, right ceremonies, right sacrifices, etc. Which in turn opens the possibility of exerting some small measure of control over one's circumstances in an otherwise apparently capricious and indifferent universe.

4. Religion serves to alleviate fear of the unknown.

5. Believing that the universe is controlled by supernatural Beings opens up significant career possibilities for individuals who can successfully declare and maintain the illusion that they know and understand the nature of these Beings, and that these Beings often in fact work through them. This is inevitably how religions become written down and codified. And then devolve into thousands of different denominations.

6. Religious beliefs often offer major significant long term benefits for those who subscribe to the belief. Many of the most significant of these benefits are promised to the believer after the believer has passed on into another life after this one. Which the belief declares that the believer will surely have as a benefit for believing. A benefit that will be missed by those who fail to believe.

People come up with all sorts of bad ideas. Usually it's to make money.

Christianity was a liability for three hundred years when it was a capital crime. Assigning ignoble motives to a rather large and eclectic group of people serves no purpose except to evince axe-grinding – preconceived biases and prejudices.

The belief that the end of times and final judgement was at hand was already an old and widely held belief at the time of Jesus. Dying a martyr's death for one's religious beliefs was seen then, as it is now in some beliefs, as an instant pathway to heaven. For example:

"When, about 190, the Roman procouncul Antonius persecuted Christians in Asia Minor, hundreds of Montanists, for paradise, crowded before his tribunal and asked for martyrdom. He could not accommodate them all; some he executed; but most he dismissed with the words: 'Miserable creatures! If you wish to die are there not ropes and precipices?' The church banned Montanism as a heresy, and in the sixth century Justinian ordered the extinction of the sect. Some Montanists gathered in their churches, set fire to them, and let themselves be burned alive." (The Story of Civilization, Book 3; Caesar and Christ, The Growth of the Church; pg 605, by Will Durant).

The Montanists were heretics, according to the Catholic church. As such they were destined for hell. According to the Catholic church. The Montanists on the other hand were certain of the truth of their beliefs and their eventual entry into paradise. History is filled with examples of religious zealots seeking martyrdom. The historical record is filled with all sorts of various apparently odd and strange beliefs which were, for whatever reason, held to be the utmost of revealed truth to those who subscribed to them.

[logical thinking]

Again, just because your arguments are ridiculous, it doesn't mean that i'm committing a logical fallacy, and just because you're unable to see the substance of my argument, or choose to focus on the fact that I outline it in a humorous way, it doens't mean the substance isn't there.

You ridiculed an argument and nothing more and that is the fallacy of argumentum ad ridiculum. The most likely reason you did this was because you would have to concede that indeed the possibility remains that the uncaused causer is an intelligent entity. I’ve noticed that on this board skeptics and/or atheists are consistently loathe to concede even the twentieth part of one poor scruple to a theist. Why is that?

Of course the possibility that Allah (the uncaused causer) exists is not zero. If I thought it was utterly impossible I wouldn't be an agnostic atheist (someone who doens't know for sure, but doesn't believe in God), but a gnostic atheist (one who knows God doens't exist).

So, yeah, an intelligent entity that created the universe is a possibility.

Here's who that entity could be: Yahweh, Allah, the Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, something completely different.

Here's other possibilities: We're inside the matrix right now and it's all a simulation. I (the person writing this text) am God, and I'm having a dream in which I was a human being, then I'll wake up and create 12 universes before lunch. Etc etc etc.

We can create all sorts of wacky theories about flying horses, talking donkeys, flying corpses, souls inside volcanoes, magic toy factories in the north pole, etc. At some point though, we have to ask ourselves: Is there any grown-up reason for believing any of this?

It's perfectly legitimate to call into question your special pleading argument whereby you assert that a set of rules (must have been created) applies to the universe, and a different set of rules (was not created) applies to your imaginary friend.

I applied no special pleading. You said that it was absurd to think that something could have always existed and that this meant that belief in a god was equally absurd. I brought to bear the opinions of not a few scientists who do posit that something could have always existed, which of course means that belief in God isn’t the absurd impossibility you asserted it was.

If you could kindly provide a link to where I said that a creator of the universe was an impossibility, I'd appreciate it.

What I am saying is that we know next to nothing about the origin of the universe. We truly have almost zero data and it's all speculation.

It's not impossible that something caused the universe. It's not impossible that the universe was not caused by anything. It's not impossible that something caused the universe, which was not caused by anything. It's not impossible that that there's an infinite sequence of causes. It's not impossible that the cause of the universe is an intelligent entity that dislikes it when primates living on earth masturbate.

None of these remote speculative ideas are entirely impossible. But to believe any one of them and disbelieve all the others, and to organize your entire life around that belief, is really really.... how can I put it... misguided?

The broader point I'm making is that as long as there is no evidence whatsoever of God . . .

That is a false statement. You guys routinely use “evidence� when you should be saying “conclusive evidence.� Since the rest of your statement is founded on this erroneous thinking, I don’t have to address it or any other point that speaks of “evidence� when it should be qualified as “conclusive evidence.�

I don't need conclusive evidence.

I just need evidence for what you believe, which is at least a little bit better than evidence for what you don't believe.

So if the evidence for the God of the Bible (some anonymous dude wrote down that he's real and a bunch of people believed him) is no better than the evidence for Allah or Zeus or Santa or Scientology, I have every right to take your claims about God about as seriously as a child's claims about Santa or Spiderman.

If the evidence for a generic unspecified intelligent creator of the universe is no better than the evidence AGAINST an intelligent creator, then, again, your belief in the creator is completely vacuous.

Nice!

I’m not sure what’s so nice about it. You might have something intelligent to say but I’ll never read it once I read a comment that I consider rude. I’ve learned in my 40+ years of debate that one who must resort to insult doesn’t have much else to say and I should waste my time waiting for his/her to regain his/her composure.

Please cut it out with the fake outrage.

I called you "buddy". BUDDY. That's what I did that was so horribly rude.

Do you truly expect anybody to believe that you do in fact have compelling arguments for your your positions, and that the reason you refuse to disclose them, is that you are offended by being called... buddy???

Please. You got nothing.

I'll give you one last chance: Why do you believe in God?

I’ve articulated the reasons several times already. If you didn’t understand them yet then I don’t suppose you will if I do it again.

Can you please copy and paste the BEST reason for believing in God that you already told me about?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 71 by JLB32168]


"From nothing, nothing comes."

Oh, perfect, so we agree that the singularity always existed. Good. So that makes a creating God unnecessary. Because it's possible for things to have always existed without having been created.

That’s one logical conclusion. Of course, another logical conclusion is that God has always existed and that He did all of this stuff.

We don't have to invent anything when we say that THINGS exist. We have to ADD an eternal god in order to say that GOD might have always existed and created all things. Nobody disputes that THINGS exist. We atheists have a lot of trouble imagining that a GOD exists.

WHAT GOD?

Aren't you trying to prove that a God exists?

You said it was absurd to conclude that a God had always existed – that everything w/o question had to have a cause.

Everything IN the universe might have a cause. We don't know of EVERYTHING, and there seems to be a question about the QUANTUM LEVEL, but we don't know what we don't know.


So, let me be a bit more precise:

Everything that we KNOW OF IN the universe MIGHT have a cause.

Does a god have a cause?... we don't know
Does a god exist in the universe?... we don't know
Does a god exist OUTSIDE of the universe?... we don't know.
Do subatomic particles have a cause?... we don't know.

IF a god actually exists SOMEWHERE... is it actually eternal and infinite the way that it's said in the Bible or whatnot?... WE DON'T KNOW

What do we REALLY KNOW about any god?.... nothing at all. But, that never stops people from MAKING IT UP.

One must consider to whom s/he should defer regarding the eternal existence of something – the scientists who presumably is an expert in the field of cosmology or logical thinking.

Nobody at all knows anything at all about eternal existence. Mathematicians use math, scientists use science and math, religious people use the Bible and.... their seemingly infinite imaginations.

IF ANY of these people tell us that they KNOW anything at all about "eternal existence"... I'll give you a heads up. They're BLUFFING.

Some people LOVE to bluff.

If they can exist without being created, there's no reason to assume a God who created the universe, because the universe can exist without being created.

There’s no reason to assume that created things always existed either. Scentists posit that something always existed but they can’t explain how or why it always existed.

So we seem to be at a bit of an impasse here.
I can think of six possible competing hypotheses that we can't POSSIBLY investigate right now:

1. The universe itself is eternal and does not need a god or ANYTHING to cause it to happen.
2. The universe itself is not eternal and needs SOMETHING to cause it. But there is no god, so a god cannot be the cause.
3. The universe itself is non eternal and WOULD NOT need anything to cause it to happen, it happened without a cause. ( ex nihilo omnia fit )
4. The universe itself is non eternal and an eternal god causes it to happen.
5. The universe itself is non eternal and an non eternal god causes it to happen.
6. The excluded middle. Something really WEIRD and completely unexpected caused the universe to happen.

Notice that there is only one case where an eternal god is actually needed.

Occam's razor would have us select the competing hypotheses with the fewest assumptions.

Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 assume that the universe exists.

Only option 4 adds an eternal god to the universe.
Only option 5 adds a non eternal god to the universe.
Only option 6 adds something WEIRDLY different from all of the others to the universe. Let's call that "Hypothesis X".

Options 1, 2, and 3 are all more parsimonious than 4, 5 and 6.

Gods and "Hypothesis X" are added FEATURES to what we know about reality.

NOTE:

Even if we DO pick option 4 ( Which I think Christians might prefer ), it doesn't come CLOSE to proving the Christian god exists. It could be any KIND of eternal god capable of creating the universe.

So, what does the Kalam Cosmological Argument GIVE US.... I'd say a whole lot of NOTHING. And we all know that "From nothing, nothing comes."

To argue for God, you are forced to simultaneously say that something that exists must have been created AND that something that exists does NOT need to be created. Either way you lose.

You improperly limit the choices to either/or – a fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option – that God always existed and that created things did not.

Above, I added three other options. That the universe came into being acausally, that the universe came into being by way of a non eternal god, that the universe came into being by something that we can't even imagine right now.

And I am NOT saying that we only have the 6 options. But that's what I came up with right now in the heat of the moment. I'd be very interested in knowing what people think of my list.

Manipulative demagogues create religions that appeal to fear and leverage on basic human decency, to control people.

You’re entitled to your opinion.

EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS... why even mention it?
Was there any DOUBT?

Are you saying that there are no religious demagogues as our friend says?

Why did man invent cigarettes if cigarettes are bad for you?

So you have no answer to the question of why man created religions since he already possessed compassion and empathy. Man created cigarettes because of addiction.

It might also had something to do with money, and jobs and ignorance, and a very honest desire to bring to us the very BEST in tobacco products. For some, smoking tobacco is RELIGIOUS.

The TRUTH is that nobody really KNOWS why religions were created. All we can EVER do ( unless we have a time machine and possibly a mind reading machine too ) IS SPECULATE.

People come up with all sorts of bad ideas. Usually it's to make money.

Christianity was a liability for three hundred years when it was a capital crime. Assigning ignoble motives to a rather large and eclectic group of people serves no purpose except to evince axe-grinding – preconceived biases and prejudices.

And that doesn't mean that others never used Christianity to turn a quick buck. I think that when it comes to Christianity, power and money go hand in hand. Atheists hope that this circumstance will change for the better in the future.

Theocracies are NOT currently viewed as the best forms of government. But that doesn't stop a WHOLE lot of powerful Christians from using money to get their religious ideas FORCED on the rest of all of us.

And it would be quite foolish to think that religions don't rake in a PILE of money. And we KNOW about how much some religious people want political power.

And when they DO get that power, it's not always PRETTY, is it?

It's of no use, though, to simply accuse people of a bias. Our friend is right to say that humans are very often motivated by money. Religious people aren't immune to it.

You might have HEARD of religious scams.

You've asserted that miracles happened. I asserted that miracles didn't happen.

I said that miracles were only make-believe fairy tales if they didn’t occur.

If they don't occur.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY DO .. or don't you?
Hard to tell.

I made an open ended question that you have now misrepresented twice as the definitive assertion that miracles occurred.

And now, we have to guess if a Christian believes in miracles or not.... tough call.

Aside from that, a spontaneous healing/remission of cancer is properly called a “miracle� since the term need not imply the existence of a supernatural entity affecting the miracle.

"Felt like a miracle at the time. "

People say the darndest things.

[1213]

After ancient rome fell, the residents of italy were left without a country of their own, colonized by neighboring countries for centuries.

Italy and Rome is not same thing. Italians are Italians and Romans were Romans. Today there are no Roman nation.

You shouldn't believe either of us. You should form your opinion based on the empirical evidence.

Good, that I have done.

… called compassion. That exists in every single human being. The authors of the Bible didn't come up with it.

Biblical love seems to be more than compassion.

so it's partially written by God?

Bible doesn’t say in all cases who wrote it, so I don’t really know. I believe humans have written it.

How do you know God exists? Because there are some passages in an old book that you think are really cool?

I believe God exists, because of the Bible and that I do because I see Bible to be correct about this world.

In any case, why does the fact that people don't like being murdered by religious zealots mean that the Bible is real?

When people are against the Bible without honest and accurate claims about the Bible, it does seem to have something special. If Bible would have real problems, it could be easily shown without arguments that have not really anything to do with what the Bible tells.

So God is real because in your opinion the Bible has cool tips for living a life where it's not necessary to be intelligent?

To be more accurate, for me Bible gives better understanding so that I don’t have to experience or test all.