Religocity is simply bad epistemology

'You forgot one: Christianity: The belief in Jesus Christ as Savior of the world and son of God Obviously, in the definition of Christianity there's nothing about charity, so it becomes an implication and not part of the definition." Ask any minister, priest, monk, nun, elder, deacon, or any other member of the clergy of almost any Christian church, and they will tell there is much more to being a Christian than simply believing in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the World and the Son of God. Being a Christian means following Jesus' teachings. Jesus teaches many things and most Christians try to follow his teachings. Countless times in the Bible, Jesus gives us the Golden Rule, "Do unto others..." this is not just a periphery belief. This is a central principle of the religion. "But, let's say you try and define Christianity as following everything Jesus said. Then, what about this: "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." -- Matthew 5:29-30. I've never actually seen a Christian do this. Am I to conclude that there are no real Christians in the world? Obviously not, because Christianity is belief in the Central teachings of Jesus. This does not count as one of them and neither is charity. It's a periphery belief at best." Apparently my opponent has never heard of a figure of speech. What this passage means is that if part of you is immoral, you should correct that part, and lose that part, for losing that is far better than burning in hell. It is talking about self-improvement, not hacking off limbs, at least, not literally. If my opponent wants a religion that clearly has charity as a central belief take Islam. The third pillar of Islam is to give religious alms, to the mosque, and to the poor. This is charity. Ok, so now your refutation of my argument. You claim: "An omnipotent being can do anything, that means it can do mutually exclusive actions." The argument is such that all I can gesture to is how wildly improbable this claim is. In fact, at the point where you've made this claim all discussions of God become entirely meaningless. Including religion. In Christianity, the logical inference made is 'God claimed he wanted X, so doing X will make God happy. A happy God will sent me to Heaven'. God as logic-defier cannot be held to this claim. Perhaps God said he wanted you to believe in Jesus, but what he meant is make extravagant red hats. Nothing makes any sense without God as a logical entity. So, I do not think you actually believe this claim. In response, I would like to say, an omnipotent being has to be able to defy logic, otherwise, it wouldn't be omnipotent. That doesn't really seem to defy logic to me. "Nothing makes sense without God as a logical entity." I never said He wasn't illogical, I just said He could be. Just like He could make rocks that He couldn't pick up, but as far as I know, He doesn't. Another principle of God is being omnibenevolent, all good. That means He wouldn't deceive us. "Premise 1 is false. There's a difference between 'imagining' something in its totality and holding the concept in mind. I have the concept of infinity in my mind, but I obviously cannot completely imagine infinity. The same goes for God: people either understand the concept or they partially imagine him (i.e. bearded white guy). No one actually imagines the unimaginable God." Well, we certainly imagined enough to write a whole book on him. We imagine him beyond what he have imagined about infinity. Besides, with infinity, there isn't much to imagine. I'm not going to fight a battle that I can't win with only 4038 characters left, so I'll drop my Avicenna argument, (the everything has a cause argument). " "1. God is the greatest conceivable thing. 2. It is greater to be existent than not. 3. God must exist." Premise two here is by stipulation as well. If I imagine the most perfect chocolate chip cookie, the cookie in my mind will always be better than the cookie in real life. Even if you disagree with that. It certainly isn't proven." It is certainly greater to exist, because if that cookie doesn't exist, then it isn't as enjoyable as a real cookie. So, that chocolate chip cookie is not the most perfect cookie, but God is the most perfect thing. Jesus historicity: I would like to say a) Jesus has been established to exist. The miracles he has (supposedly) performed are at least slightly plausible. The Indian man, his miracles are slightly plausible as well. The reason he is so unpopular, is because Jesus is here, stealing the limelight. Jesus certainly seemed like the Son of God, and there is evidence, enough evidence for someone to believe in him without warranting being called in denial, crazy, etc. Next, even if Jesus isn't the son of God, I've still proven Islam or Judaism okay. Finally, I would like to point out my opponent never refuted my empirical evidence of a god. Quod erat demonstrandum