Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

Kinda, A warped sense of "reality" comes from religious dogmas that teach us to follow fairy tales and trust imaginary beings such as god, or else we go to hell. I support a clear, objective understanding of reality, you clearly don't. You are still hoping that the god you believe in is real in order to base your morality on it. Morality does not require a god. Atheists are not immoral people. Muslims are not immoral people. Buddhist are not immoral. Everyone is capable of understanding and exercising good will towards others (in favor of a greater good), with or without a religious background. What I'm saying is, there is no need to believe in god in order to attain a greater good. I still maintain that arguing which religion is right is absurd because it is like arguing about the preferences of santa claus. It is unnecessary. A waste of effort. And unfortunately it further divides us. I know people clash on different subjects, we all have differences.. however religious people tend to view others outside their religion as being inferior, or condemned, or in need. They view themselves as being "right" and this hinders communication and dialogue. While two people with differing opinions on politics or philosophy an argue and change their minds and grow; two very firm religious believers will not argue for the sake of developing their ideas. Their aim is to "convince" the other person that they need a "god". Im very clear in saying that moral choices do not come from fairy tales. They come from judgement based on enough evidence about a situation. When two friends of yours get into a fight and one comes to tell you about the situation, you have the choice to make a judgement without listening to the other side of the story. If you do, your judgement is more likely to be flawed than if you allowed yourself to listen to the other side. The more evidence you have, the better the choice you will make. Religion makes us listen to only one authorative voice, the voice of god (whoever that one is). When I talk about "evidence" please do not mistake this only with scientific evidence. When I speak of science I mean using the scientific method of inquiry. Of course moral judgments come outside of science! im not arguing or that or saying contrary. But INFORMED judgments come from more evidence and knowledge. Thats the difference. When I hear "homosexuality is wrong!" from a religious person, no one is able to give me one reason between stuttering that doesn't boil down to "the word of god". This is an exampled of a moral judgement that is uninformed and inaccurate. I find a lot of contradictions in what you are saying about belief in god. When I mentioned that faith is the certainty of things without the need for evidence, Im not making this up. Go look at the definition of faith in the bible and you will see what many followers already know. Questioning within a religion is not "wrong" but it is seeing often as an attack of the devil, a phase, or something that must be overcome. Because eventually, you just gotta believe, brother. or as you mentioned near the end of your post: you just have to trust the imaginary being above. When you say that science does nothing, you sound like a very religious uneducated person. Science does nothing?! geez, now who sounds close minded? A scientific method of reasoning actually tells us to start all inquiries with the premise that we do not know, and thus, we keep on searching. Religious people quit that search and take things by faith, that is, by lack of evidence. Including a lack of proof for the existence of god. If you show an atheist proofs of the existence of god, then it makes sense to believe. But when scientific proof comes out rebutting the possibility of the afterlife, or miracles, or of resurrection , the religious person closes his ears and stops listening. This also occurs when two religious people argue, from different beliefs... why? because they already trust "in their heart" so no point in dialoguing in order to find out if what they trust is true or not. Judgement about whether one thing is good or not should come from information. Lets stop calling it science cause you seem to get confuse. In your example about immigration, if your judgement is based on the unfounded belief that people from other countries are inferior, then your judgement will be wrong. However if you judgement is based upon evidence about the effects of immigration on your country (whether good or bad), then you will have a better judgement, and therefore make better laws. Does that make sense? What is the need for a god ideology when in reality better judgement comes from more information? So isn't evidence useful?!? I find it appalling to be arguing with someone who says that science has done nothing, and who sees no point in gathering evidence before making a judgement about a person or a behavior. Religion gives a warped sense of reality. Evidence clears out our warped senses and presents reality in a sharper focus.