Religocity is simply bad epistemology

"Religiosity-"excessively, obtrusively, or sentimentally religious" Merriam-Webster Religion- "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" 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. 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. 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. LOGICAL PROOFS: I think I was right here that God is not demonstrated a priori, only argued for. To prove this, let's go over your arguments: "1. God is a figure in the minds of 30% of the world's population. 2. God is by definition, unimaginable. 3. God therefore, cannot simply be a creation of human imagination. 4. Therefore, God is real." 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. "1. The universe is made up of many beings. 2. Each being must have come from another being. 3. This would continue endlessly, unless there was one being that was the original creator. 4. There must be an original creator." First, premise 2 is just stipulation and is at least not demonstrated. Stephen Hawkings for example suggested that the universe sprang into existence on its own much in the same way that oppositely charged particles spring into existence. Also, 2 contradicts 4. How can there be an original creator if every being has to come from another being? Another way to put it is, if God created everything, who created God? "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. JESUS AND HISTORICITY: You actually just ignore my most devastating argument. Evidence for more plausible miracles exists now, yet no one believes it. Why believe in Jesus? This is the main point. Evidence for miracles is rampant in ancient times, yet people only believe in the Jesus side of the miracles. Why?