Religocity is simply bad epistemology

"Let's say I believe: 1. I am tired. 2. I need to wake up. Now, a potential implication of that belief system is that I might go and drink coffee, but this implication is not directly contained in the belief system. Analogously, religious charity, nation building etc. are implications of religious belief but are not religious beliefs in themselves (and that these actually result from religion is highly dubious as is). Since my critique is of the religion, not the implications of the religion, the critique is fine." Religiosity-"excessively, obtrusively, or sentimentally religious" Merriam-Webster Religion- "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" Many charities are not implications of the religion, they are part of holding to the beliefs with "ardor and faith." In Christianity, Jesus teaches that we should help each other, to "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." -Matthew 7:12 So, charity is part of Christianity, not an implication of it. "The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God." Leviticus 19:34 Again, charity is a belief, not a implication. Also, religion is a moral system, and stimulates morality, and the like. It is certainly not simply bad epistemology (It isn't even bad epistemology). Now, discussing the next part. "1. a being is omnipotent iff (if and only if) he can do any action. 2. a being can either a)create a stone so big that he cannot lift it or b)lift any stone he creates. 3. a) and b) are mutually exclusive so no being can do both 4. there is an action no being can perform 5. there is no omnipotent being" I would like to focus on premise 3. "a) and b) are mutually exclusive so no being can do both" An omnipotent being can do anything, that means it can do mutually exclusive actions. It may seem illogical, but you have to remember, God is supernatural, which means he transcends logic. (also, even if you claim that He is natural, part of being omnipotent is being able to transcend logic, as that is included in "anything"). My opponent asks for proof of God's existence. First I'll offer empirical evidence (not proof per say, but evidence). The existence of our Earth, and the existence of life is an extremely improbable situation. There are also so many complex elements in this world, that random chance seems unlikely. An intelligent designer seems more plausible, the world is simply too perfect for random chance. Epistemology consists of evidence, so the evidence for the existence of God is there, and it is not so improbable as you make it seem. Now, for an actual proof: 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. Also this: 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. And this: 1. God is the greatest conceivable thing. 2. It is greater to be existent than not. 3. God must exist. Now, for the claims of Jesus. On the wikipedia article about Jesus, there is this quote "Historians are nearly unanimous in accepting Jesus' baptism as a historical event." This is sourced to: Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1987; Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1981; Fredriksen, Paula. From Jesus to Christ. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Obviously, Jesus must exist to be baptized. This and other biblical events are supported by historians. Obviously, there is enough evidence for one to be reasonable in the belief in God, Jesus, and the like. I will bring up a final point this round. Buddhism. It is by all means a religion, but it does not contain large amounts of outrageous claims. It is not amazing epistemology, but it is not bad epistemology. I can extend if you so desire.