Why do people hate islam?

[Inkvor]

Religion is not a race.

my bad ,i didnt had  a better word  for that..
religions solely made for POWER and WOMEN ..and currently for money

LOL. Now I get ya.

"First you get the money,

Then you get the power,

Then you get the women"

-Tony Montana

something like that..i mean the religions are made to get the never ending power and the most beautiful women..
but i guess the plans change as the centuries change ,,,haha

The Bible based Christian religion already has the power... in God. It is out to give the power to as many others as will come over to Bible based Christianity.

One fairy tale is very like another. If you actually READ your holy book, no interpretations, it's at least as horrific as the Q'uran. In my judgment, having read both, the Q'uran is a bit more internally consistent, but no less horrible. To make either religion palatable to civilized people requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

If you dropped formal religion, including Christianity, out of life, what would you get? You would get the same things that you get with the formal religions, except God and guidance. Essentially, there would be a whole lot more corruption, a whole lot more warring, a whole lot more "badness" among people.

People who do bad things will use whatever methods they can to do bad things. They will take as much good as they can, and twist it to their own ways, to make it bad. Without the good of the formal religions, things would be a lot worse. If you think that people couldn't or wouldn't design bad things without formal religion, you are extremely naive.

Religion offers guidance towards goodness. Even a formally semi-violent religion like Islam offers guidance towards goodness in this life. Think of how bad it would be without religion.

More important, even if there were no badness along with no formal religion, that is, even if people were not mean and bad, period, they would still get old and die. Old age and death seem to be built into the "genetics" of nature. Why do I mention this? Because old age isn't something that is nice and good. It is wicked and evil. It leads to death, and eternal death which includes agony of soul forever.

At least the Christian religion shows us the way out of death which would not be known without the formal Christian religion. Without the Bible it would almost be absolutely, formally unknown.

The point? Without the Bible, the way out of death to a joyous life in Heaven would be missed by almost all people. In addition, life and living conditions on earth would be worse. Now, at least, there will be some millions or billions in Heaven.

what the hell ? there is no such things like evil or good ? what if a meteor hits earth and half of the population dies ?is that EVIL ? NO
also we dont know nothing about the evolution and things around us ,but it dosent means we make a false story just to rule the brainwashed population ?
yes the holy books tried to make people more civilized ,than other animals around.  NO one will be in heaven or hell/

[BADecker]

Religion is not a race.

my bad ,i didnt had  a better word  for that..
religions solely made for POWER and WOMEN ..and currently for money

LOL. Now I get ya.

"First you get the money,

Then you get the power,

Then you get the women"

-Tony Montana

something like that..i mean the religions are made to get the never ending power and the most beautiful women..
but i guess the plans change as the centuries change ,,,haha

The Bible based Christian religion already has the power... in God. It is out to give the power to as many others as will come over to Bible based Christianity.

One fairy tale is very like another. If you actually READ your holy book, no interpretations, it's at least as horrific as the Q'uran. In my judgment, having read both, the Q'uran is a bit more internally consistent, but no less horrible. To make either religion palatable to civilized people requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

If you dropped formal religion, including Christianity, out of life, what would you get? You would get the same things that you get with the formal religions, except God and guidance. Essentially, there would be a whole lot more corruption, a whole lot more warring, a whole lot more "badness" among people.

People who do bad things will use whatever methods they can to do bad things. They will take as much good as they can, and twist it to their own ways, to make it bad. Without the good of the formal religions, things would be a lot worse. If you think that people couldn't or wouldn't design bad things without formal religion, you are extremely naive.

Religion offers guidance towards goodness. Even a formally semi-violent religion like Islam offers guidance towards goodness in this life. Think of how bad it would be without religion.

More important, even if there were no badness along with no formal religion, that is, even if people were not mean and bad, period, they would still get old and die. Old age and death seem to be built into the "genetics" of nature. Why do I mention this? Because old age isn't something that is nice and good. It is wicked and evil. It leads to death, and eternal death which includes agony of soul forever.

At least the Christian religion shows us the way out of death which would not be known without the formal Christian religion. Without the Bible it would almost be absolutely, formally unknown.

The point? Without the Bible, the way out of death to a joyous life in Heaven would be missed by almost all people. In addition, life and living conditions on earth would be worse. Now, at least, there will be some millions or billions in Heaven.

what the hell ? there is no such things like evil or good ? what if a meteor hits earth and half of the population dies ?is that EVIL ? NO
also we dont know nothing about the evolution and things around us ,but it dosent means we make a false story just to rule the brainwashed population ?
yes the holy books tried to make people more civilized ,than other animals around.  NO one will be in heaven or hell/

Of course you don't sit around and make a false story just to rule some brainwashed population. But you don't think, either. Here's what I mean.

Generally speaking, the things that people like are the things that they call good. The things that they don't like are the things that they call bad (evil). When people have joy, they feel that they are having good. Generally, when they have things like depression, melancholy, misery, sadness, sorrow, pain, etc., they call it evil.

Perhaps you are different. Perhaps you are the other way around. Perhaps throughout all the good and evil that fills life, you can simply remind yourself that this stuff is just happenstance, and simply go on your way without any feelings of "I like it" or "I don't like it." But most people can't do this. However, the fact that you appear to be protesting against the ideas of good and evil, suggests that you don't like such ideas, and that they are, therefore, evil for you.

So, by your simple protest against the things that I am saying, you are suggesting evil in some ways.

On the other hand, perhaps your protest gives you some form of joy. That joy might exist in the simple fact that you are able to protest. Or it might exist in the fact that you are able to use a computer and post in a forum.

Again, generally people consider things that bring them joy, happiness, well being, pleasure, etc., to be good, while things that bring them depression, melancholy, misery, sadness, sorrow, pain, etc., they call it evil. Good and evil don't exist? Most people think that they do, and you probably think so as well.

[Biomech]

If you dropped formal religion, including Christianity, out of life, what would you get? You would get the same things that you get with the formal religions, except God and guidance. Essentially, there would be a whole lot more corruption, a whole lot more warring, a whole lot more "badness" among people.

I strongly disagree. In those nations where religion holds less sway, we see LESS of the above. See Sweden for a good example. Of course the argument could be made that socialism is itself a formal religion, but you are specifically referring to Christianity and to a lesser extent, other theistic religions.

People who do bad things will use whatever methods they can to do bad things. They will take as much good as they can, and twist it to their own ways, to make it bad. Without the good of the formal religions, things would be a lot worse. If you think that people couldn't or wouldn't design bad things without formal religion, you are extremely naive.

On the contrary, in a rational world bad people do bad things and good people do good things. (I'll get into "good" and "evil" in a moment). With the backing of religion, good people do bad things, and often with a clear conscience. For a number of good examples from within your book, just read the book of Exodus. Granted, most of it is false, like zero evidence that the Hebrews were ever slaves in egypt for instance, but it openly condones putting entire populations to the sword in the name of "The LORD of HOSTS" if you like the KJV, or more correctly translated The God of Armies or Jehovah (medieval latin) or Yahwey as most modern scholars believe the name to be properly pronounced. One of the things commanded by your god was the dashing of babies against the rocks. And do not give me the "sins of the father" argument, because there is NO moral or ethical way to justify it. Which is pretty bad for your religion, because it's the crux of your beliefs. (see what I did there? Crux is short for Crucifix).

Religion offers guidance towards goodness. Even a formally semi-violent religion like Islam offers guidance towards goodness in this life. Think of how bad it would be without religion.

This is a tamer version of what Christians often say to atheists. It scares the shit out of me. Because what you're really saying is that without some religion going on, then people IN GENERAL are going to run rampant, murdering, raping, stealing, and generally being assholes. This tells us a LOT about the religious mindset. Luckily, we have all of history to prove it untrue. If humans were inherently evil, using the term the way religious people do, then no such books would be written, and given that none of the thousands of gods does a fucking thing, even if they were no one would care. Our species would not have survived. For the most part, we do not need to be told that it's wrong to attack and kill our fellow men and women. Crime is actually a pretty low percentage of human activity, once you take away statutory crime. (that's a discussion for another time). And as one would expect without the religious mindset, the worst crimes are the least common. A guy might not think twice about grabbing a loaf of bread, but will think a lot harder about assault or murder, even if he's deviant.

The truth, clearly observable if you have ANY grasp of reality and the ability to think, is that people are generally pretty neutral. We're a social species, so we work out ways to interact with each other. We also are pack animals, so we tend to make codes, such as religion, that make the "outsider" somehow less than human. That is just as egregious as theism, but it's at least something we can recognize and mitigate IN THE ABSENCE of religion. Within the framework of religion, the "other" will always be subhuman. It is not an accident that secularization of the world led to the largest population of humans ever. Civilized men rarely kill because of "god" anymore, with a few glaring exceptions. Unfortunately, those glaring exceptions are good at getting themselves into positions of power (which is a big part of why I'm an anarchist as well as an atheist).

More important, even if there were no badness along with no formal religion, that is, even if people were not mean and bad, period, they would still get old and die. Old age and death seem to be built into the "genetics" of nature. Why do I mention this? Because old age isn't something that is nice and good. It is wicked and evil. It leads to death, and eternal death which includes agony of soul forever.

Religion stands firmly in the way of mitigating death by providing the obvious fairy tale you present below. There is just about zero evidence that anything "survives" death except energy, which is never destroyed. There is a whole lot of evidence that we could extend life indefinitely via technologies that Christians oppose on "principle" because it's "playing god". Well, I for one ain't playing. At base, god means creator, and we are the most creative species we are aware of. In fact, even when I was religious, that bothered me. If we're made in god's image, as Christians and Jews presuppose, then why do Christians stand so heavily AGAINST being creative? (again, this is something of a deviation from the discussion, but something you ought to think about)

The pursuit of immortality predates Christianity by a rather large number of millenia. The ability to pursue it by technical means is just now falling into place, but a lot of that research has been very vocally opposed by Christians. For examples of the works, I suggest you google the methuselah mouse prize, SENS, and Dr. Aubrey DeGrey. It's beyond the scope of this discussion. I've been heavily involved in it for several decades now.

At least the Christian religion shows us the way out of death which would not be known without the formal Christian religion. Without the Bible it would almost be absolutely, formally unknown.

The point? Without the Bible, the way out of death to a joyous life in Heaven would be missed by almost all people. In addition, life and living conditions on earth would be worse. Now, at least, there will be some millions or billions in Heaven.

Utterly false. Every religion that I am aware of deals with "what happens after death" and they all disagree.

Now let me provide a little conundrum for you. Take away all the other contradictions and hypocrisy surrounding all religion and ask yourself this:

Based on the ideation that all theistic religions claim two things:

1. There is an all powerful god that has made or set in motion the entirety of our universe and
2. This god wishes to be worshipped.

The question is, if the above were true, how many religions would exist?

EDIT: I forgot to go into the definition of good and evil. Both are to a large extent religious concepts, but they are derived from very real concepts. So, to a social animal, what is good, and what is evil?

Good would be that which optimizes survival of the species. To a socially aware species, such as ours, this could also extend to what is good for the individual actor WITH REFERENCE to the overall paradigm. If it's optimal for both the individual AND the survival of the species, it could be considered "good". If it is optimal for the individual and inimical to the survival of the species (murder comes to mind) then it would not be. If it is optimal for the individual and does not directly affect the species ("vices" come to mind) then it would be neither.

Evil, in my way of thinking, is that which is inimical to survival of the species WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF HUMAN ACTION (or another hypothetical self aware species). That which is inimical to a species survival outside of that context is not evil, simply dangerous. Evil requires a conscious actor.

Using the above basal axioms, most religions are a mix of good and evil, but because of the unquestionable nature of "faith", the evil triumphs over the good whenever "god" has been assigned some role. Whatever you may think of the sciences, one thing about them makes them superiour to all relgious thought: There is NO forbidden question. Scientific thought operates from the axiom that all things are knowable. Not all things are known, in fact the more we learn the more we find that there is more to learn. But simply that it can be known, if the right questions are asked. In my paradigm (shared by a great many free thinking people), there is no reason to not question ANY axiom. I take it farther than most, in that by the above definitions, I consider refusal to consider a question to be evil.

As a personal "for instance", I find it most egregious that we are not already on other worlds. There is NO technical reason for this, but a lot of emotion, and yes, religious opposition.

[Sakarias-Corporation]

people are afraid, uneducated and ignorant.

[BADecker]

If you dropped formal religion, including Christianity, out of life, what would you get? You would get the same things that you get with the formal religions, except God and guidance. Essentially, there would be a whole lot more corruption, a whole lot more warring, a whole lot more "badness" among people.

I strongly disagree. In those nations where religion holds less sway, we see LESS of the above. See Sweden for a good example. Of course the argument could be made that socialism is itself a formal religion, but you are specifically referring to Christianity and to a lesser extent, other theistic religions.

People who do bad things will use whatever methods they can to do bad things. They will take as much good as they can, and twist it to their own ways, to make it bad. Without the good of the formal religions, things would be a lot worse. If you think that people couldn't or wouldn't design bad things without formal religion, you are extremely naive.

On the contrary, in a rational world bad people do bad things and good people do good things. (I'll get into "good" and "evil" in a moment). With the backing of religion, good people do bad things, and often with a clear conscience. For a number of good examples from within your book, just read the book of Exodus. Granted, most of it is false, like zero evidence that the Hebrews were ever slaves in egypt for instance, but it openly condones putting entire populations to the sword in the name of "The LORD of HOSTS" if you like the KJV, or more correctly translated The God of Armies or Jehovah (medieval latin) or Yahwey as most modern scholars believe the name to be properly pronounced. One of the things commanded by your god was the dashing of babies against the rocks. And do not give me the "sins of the father" argument, because there is NO moral or ethical way to justify it. Which is pretty bad for your religion, because it's the crux of your beliefs. (see what I did there? Crux is short for Crucifix).

Religion offers guidance towards goodness. Even a formally semi-violent religion like Islam offers guidance towards goodness in this life. Think of how bad it would be without religion.

This is a tamer version of what Christians often say to atheists. It scares the shit out of me. Because what you're really saying is that without some religion going on, then people IN GENERAL are going to run rampant, murdering, raping, stealing, and generally being assholes. This tells us a LOT about the religious mindset. Luckily, we have all of history to prove it untrue. If humans were inherently evil, using the term the way religious people do, then no such books would be written, and given that none of the thousands of gods does a fucking thing, even if they were no one would care. Our species would not have survived. For the most part, we do not need to be told that it's wrong to attack and kill our fellow men and women. Crime is actually a pretty low percentage of human activity, once you take away statutory crime. (that's a discussion for another time). And as one would expect without the religious mindset, the worst crimes are the least common. A guy might not think twice about grabbing a loaf of bread, but will think a lot harder about assault or murder, even if he's deviant.

The truth, clearly observable if you have ANY grasp of reality and the ability to think, is that people are generally pretty neutral. We're a social species, so we work out ways to interact with each other. We also are pack animals, so we tend to make codes, such as religion, that make the "outsider" somehow less than human. That is just as egregious as theism, but it's at least something we can recognize and mitigate IN THE ABSENCE of religion. Within the framework of religion, the "other" will always be subhuman. It is not an accident that secularization of the world led to the largest population of humans ever. Civilized men rarely kill because of "god" anymore, with a few glaring exceptions. Unfortunately, those glaring exceptions are good at getting themselves into positions of power (which is a big part of why I'm an anarchist as well as an atheist).

More important, even if there were no badness along with no formal religion, that is, even if people were not mean and bad, period, they would still get old and die. Old age and death seem to be built into the "genetics" of nature. Why do I mention this? Because old age isn't something that is nice and good. It is wicked and evil. It leads to death, and eternal death which includes agony of soul forever.

Religion stands firmly in the way of mitigating death by providing the obvious fairy tale you present below. There is just about zero evidence that anything "survives" death except energy, which is never destroyed. There is a whole lot of evidence that we could extend life indefinitely via technologies that Christians oppose on "principle" because it's "playing god". Well, I for one ain't playing. At base, god means creator, and we are the most creative species we are aware of. In fact, even when I was religious, that bothered me. If we're made in god's image, as Christians and Jews presuppose, then why do Christians stand so heavily AGAINST being creative? (again, this is something of a deviation from the discussion, but something you ought to think about)

The pursuit of immortality predates Christianity by a rather large number of millenia. The ability to pursue it by technical means is just now falling into place, but a lot of that research has been very vocally opposed by Christians. For examples of the works, I suggest you google the methuselah mouse prize, SENS, and Dr. Aubrey DeGrey. It's beyond the scope of this discussion. I've been heavily involved in it for several decades now.

At least the Christian religion shows us the way out of death which would not be known without the formal Christian religion. Without the Bible it would almost be absolutely, formally unknown.

The point? Without the Bible, the way out of death to a joyous life in Heaven would be missed by almost all people. In addition, life and living conditions on earth would be worse. Now, at least, there will be some millions or billions in Heaven.

Utterly false. Every religion that I am aware of deals with "what happens after death" and they all disagree.

Now let me provide a little conundrum for you. Take away all the other contradictions and hypocrisy surrounding all religion and ask yourself this:

Based on the ideation that all theistic religions claim two things:

1. There is an all powerful god that has made or set in motion the entirety of our universe and
2. This god wishes to be worshipped.

The question is, if the above were true, how many religions would exist?

Well, I don't agree with you.

In your final question, all you need do is look and see how many religions DO exist, to tell how many religions would exist. Any Being that has the ability to make the entirety of our universe, is a Being that we don't have a clue as to His/Its thinking and rational except that He/It tells us. Yet, He/It has complete understanding of ours.

This God wishes to be worshiped for our own good. Consider that such things as honor and dignity have been made by Him, right along with everything else. The only way to maintain our own honor and dignity is to use it to honor and dignify Him, since He OWNS everything. It is this lack of honoring and dignifying the Great Creator that is one of the greatest methods that we are using to cause our own destruction.

[Biomech]

If you dropped formal religion, including Christianity, out of life, what would you get? You would get the same things that you get with the formal religions, except God and guidance. Essentially, there would be a whole lot more corruption, a whole lot more warring, a whole lot more "badness" among people.

I strongly disagree. In those nations where religion holds less sway, we see LESS of the above. See Sweden for a good example. Of course the argument could be made that socialism is itself a formal religion, but you are specifically referring to Christianity and to a lesser extent, other theistic religions.

People who do bad things will use whatever methods they can to do bad things. They will take as much good as they can, and twist it to their own ways, to make it bad. Without the good of the formal religions, things would be a lot worse. If you think that people couldn't or wouldn't design bad things without formal religion, you are extremely naive.

On the contrary, in a rational world bad people do bad things and good people do good things. (I'll get into "good" and "evil" in a moment). With the backing of religion, good people do bad things, and often with a clear conscience. For a number of good examples from within your book, just read the book of Exodus. Granted, most of it is false, like zero evidence that the Hebrews were ever slaves in egypt for instance, but it openly condones putting entire populations to the sword in the name of "The LORD of HOSTS" if you like the KJV, or more correctly translated The God of Armies or Jehovah (medieval latin) or Yahwey as most modern scholars believe the name to be properly pronounced. One of the things commanded by your god was the dashing of babies against the rocks. And do not give me the "sins of the father" argument, because there is NO moral or ethical way to justify it. Which is pretty bad for your religion, because it's the crux of your beliefs. (see what I did there? Crux is short for Crucifix).

Religion offers guidance towards goodness. Even a formally semi-violent religion like Islam offers guidance towards goodness in this life. Think of how bad it would be without religion.

This is a tamer version of what Christians often say to atheists. It scares the shit out of me. Because what you're really saying is that without some religion going on, then people IN GENERAL are going to run rampant, murdering, raping, stealing, and generally being assholes. This tells us a LOT about the religious mindset. Luckily, we have all of history to prove it untrue. If humans were inherently evil, using the term the way religious people do, then no such books would be written, and given that none of the thousands of gods does a fucking thing, even if they were no one would care. Our species would not have survived. For the most part, we do not need to be told that it's wrong to attack and kill our fellow men and women. Crime is actually a pretty low percentage of human activity, once you take away statutory crime. (that's a discussion for another time). And as one would expect without the religious mindset, the worst crimes are the least common. A guy might not think twice about grabbing a loaf of bread, but will think a lot harder about assault or murder, even if he's deviant.

The truth, clearly observable if you have ANY grasp of reality and the ability to think, is that people are generally pretty neutral. We're a social species, so we work out ways to interact with each other. We also are pack animals, so we tend to make codes, such as religion, that make the "outsider" somehow less than human. That is just as egregious as theism, but it's at least something we can recognize and mitigate IN THE ABSENCE of religion. Within the framework of religion, the "other" will always be subhuman. It is not an accident that secularization of the world led to the largest population of humans ever. Civilized men rarely kill because of "god" anymore, with a few glaring exceptions. Unfortunately, those glaring exceptions are good at getting themselves into positions of power (which is a big part of why I'm an anarchist as well as an atheist).

More important, even if there were no badness along with no formal religion, that is, even if people were not mean and bad, period, they would still get old and die. Old age and death seem to be built into the "genetics" of nature. Why do I mention this? Because old age isn't something that is nice and good. It is wicked and evil. It leads to death, and eternal death which includes agony of soul forever.

Religion stands firmly in the way of mitigating death by providing the obvious fairy tale you present below. There is just about zero evidence that anything "survives" death except energy, which is never destroyed. There is a whole lot of evidence that we could extend life indefinitely via technologies that Christians oppose on "principle" because it's "playing god". Well, I for one ain't playing. At base, god means creator, and we are the most creative species we are aware of. In fact, even when I was religious, that bothered me. If we're made in god's image, as Christians and Jews presuppose, then why do Christians stand so heavily AGAINST being creative? (again, this is something of a deviation from the discussion, but something you ought to think about)

The pursuit of immortality predates Christianity by a rather large number of millenia. The ability to pursue it by technical means is just now falling into place, but a lot of that research has been very vocally opposed by Christians. For examples of the works, I suggest you google the methuselah mouse prize, SENS, and Dr. Aubrey DeGrey. It's beyond the scope of this discussion. I've been heavily involved in it for several decades now.

At least the Christian religion shows us the way out of death which would not be known without the formal Christian religion. Without the Bible it would almost be absolutely, formally unknown.

The point? Without the Bible, the way out of death to a joyous life in Heaven would be missed by almost all people. In addition, life and living conditions on earth would be worse. Now, at least, there will be some millions or billions in Heaven.

Utterly false. Every religion that I am aware of deals with "what happens after death" and they all disagree.

Now let me provide a little conundrum for you. Take away all the other contradictions and hypocrisy surrounding all religion and ask yourself this:

Based on the ideation that all theistic religions claim two things:

1. There is an all powerful god that has made or set in motion the entirety of our universe and
2. This god wishes to be worshipped.

The question is, if the above were true, how many religions would exist?

Well, I don't agree with you.

In your final question, all you need do is look and see how many religions DO exist, to tell how many religions would exist. Any Being that has the ability to make the entirety of our universe, is a Being that we don't have a clue as to His/Its thinking and rational except that He/It tells us. Yet, He/It has complete understanding of ours.

This God wishes to be worshiped for our own good. Consider that such things as honor and dignity have been made by Him, right along with everything else. The only way to maintain our own honor and dignity is to use it to honor and dignify Him, since He OWNS everything. It is this lack of honoring and dignifying the Great Creator that is one of the greatest methods that we are using to cause our own destruction.

I'm gonna provide you a link so you understand why your answer is a strawman. But first, I would ask that you re-read the question, and answer it as stated, rather than putting on the Christian lens and ignoring the question.

so, again. If there is a god, it is all powerful, and it wishes to be worshipped, how many religions could their possibly be?

The link following is something I constantly refer to myself. Debate and logic have a specific structure for a reason. Logical fallacies when committed by accident or habit obscure the truth. When committed deliberately, one has to wonder what the true motives of the person committing them are.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

[BADecker]

If you dropped formal religion, including Christianity, out of life, what would you get? You would get the same things that you get with the formal religions, except God and guidance. Essentially, there would be a whole lot more corruption, a whole lot more warring, a whole lot more "badness" among people.

I strongly disagree. In those nations where religion holds less sway, we see LESS of the above. See Sweden for a good example. Of course the argument could be made that socialism is itself a formal religion, but you are specifically referring to Christianity and to a lesser extent, other theistic religions.

People who do bad things will use whatever methods they can to do bad things. They will take as much good as they can, and twist it to their own ways, to make it bad. Without the good of the formal religions, things would be a lot worse. If you think that people couldn't or wouldn't design bad things without formal religion, you are extremely naive.

On the contrary, in a rational world bad people do bad things and good people do good things. (I'll get into "good" and "evil" in a moment). With the backing of religion, good people do bad things, and often with a clear conscience. For a number of good examples from within your book, just read the book of Exodus. Granted, most of it is false, like zero evidence that the Hebrews were ever slaves in egypt for instance, but it openly condones putting entire populations to the sword in the name of "The LORD of HOSTS" if you like the KJV, or more correctly translated The God of Armies or Jehovah (medieval latin) or Yahwey as most modern scholars believe the name to be properly pronounced. One of the things commanded by your god was the dashing of babies against the rocks. And do not give me the "sins of the father" argument, because there is NO moral or ethical way to justify it. Which is pretty bad for your religion, because it's the crux of your beliefs. (see what I did there? Crux is short for Crucifix).

Religion offers guidance towards goodness. Even a formally semi-violent religion like Islam offers guidance towards goodness in this life. Think of how bad it would be without religion.

This is a tamer version of what Christians often say to atheists. It scares the shit out of me. Because what you're really saying is that without some religion going on, then people IN GENERAL are going to run rampant, murdering, raping, stealing, and generally being assholes. This tells us a LOT about the religious mindset. Luckily, we have all of history to prove it untrue. If humans were inherently evil, using the term the way religious people do, then no such books would be written, and given that none of the thousands of gods does a fucking thing, even if they were no one would care. Our species would not have survived. For the most part, we do not need to be told that it's wrong to attack and kill our fellow men and women. Crime is actually a pretty low percentage of human activity, once you take away statutory crime. (that's a discussion for another time). And as one would expect without the religious mindset, the worst crimes are the least common. A guy might not think twice about grabbing a loaf of bread, but will think a lot harder about assault or murder, even if he's deviant.

The truth, clearly observable if you have ANY grasp of reality and the ability to think, is that people are generally pretty neutral. We're a social species, so we work out ways to interact with each other. We also are pack animals, so we tend to make codes, such as religion, that make the "outsider" somehow less than human. That is just as egregious as theism, but it's at least something we can recognize and mitigate IN THE ABSENCE of religion. Within the framework of religion, the "other" will always be subhuman. It is not an accident that secularization of the world led to the largest population of humans ever. Civilized men rarely kill because of "god" anymore, with a few glaring exceptions. Unfortunately, those glaring exceptions are good at getting themselves into positions of power (which is a big part of why I'm an anarchist as well as an atheist).

More important, even if there were no badness along with no formal religion, that is, even if people were not mean and bad, period, they would still get old and die. Old age and death seem to be built into the "genetics" of nature. Why do I mention this? Because old age isn't something that is nice and good. It is wicked and evil. It leads to death, and eternal death which includes agony of soul forever.

Religion stands firmly in the way of mitigating death by providing the obvious fairy tale you present below. There is just about zero evidence that anything "survives" death except energy, which is never destroyed. There is a whole lot of evidence that we could extend life indefinitely via technologies that Christians oppose on "principle" because it's "playing god". Well, I for one ain't playing. At base, god means creator, and we are the most creative species we are aware of. In fact, even when I was religious, that bothered me. If we're made in god's image, as Christians and Jews presuppose, then why do Christians stand so heavily AGAINST being creative? (again, this is something of a deviation from the discussion, but something you ought to think about)

The pursuit of immortality predates Christianity by a rather large number of millenia. The ability to pursue it by technical means is just now falling into place, but a lot of that research has been very vocally opposed by Christians. For examples of the works, I suggest you google the methuselah mouse prize, SENS, and Dr. Aubrey DeGrey. It's beyond the scope of this discussion. I've been heavily involved in it for several decades now.

At least the Christian religion shows us the way out of death which would not be known without the formal Christian religion. Without the Bible it would almost be absolutely, formally unknown.

The point? Without the Bible, the way out of death to a joyous life in Heaven would be missed by almost all people. In addition, life and living conditions on earth would be worse. Now, at least, there will be some millions or billions in Heaven.

Utterly false. Every religion that I am aware of deals with "what happens after death" and they all disagree.

Now let me provide a little conundrum for you. Take away all the other contradictions and hypocrisy surrounding all religion and ask yourself this:

Based on the ideation that all theistic religions claim two things:

1. There is an all powerful god that has made or set in motion the entirety of our universe and
2. This god wishes to be worshipped.

The question is, if the above were true, how many religions would exist?

Well, I don't agree with you.

In your final question, all you need do is look and see how many religions DO exist, to tell how many religions would exist. Any Being that has the ability to make the entirety of our universe, is a Being that we don't have a clue as to His/Its thinking and rational except that He/It tells us. Yet, He/It has complete understanding of ours.

This God wishes to be worshiped for our own good. Consider that such things as honor and dignity have been made by Him, right along with everything else. The only way to maintain our own honor and dignity is to use it to honor and dignify Him, since He OWNS everything. It is this lack of honoring and dignifying the Great Creator that is one of the greatest methods that we are using to cause our own destruction.

I'm gonna provide you a link so you understand why your answer is a strawman. But first, I would ask that you re-read the question, and answer it as stated, rather than putting on the Christian lens and ignoring the question.

so, again. If there is a god, it is all powerful, and it wishes to be worshipped, how many religions could their possibly be?

The link following is something I constantly refer to myself. Debate and logic have a specific structure for a reason. Logical fallacies when committed by accident or habit obscure the truth. When committed deliberately, one has to wonder what the true motives of the person committing them are.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

The simple answer to your question is 1 religion, to as many religions as there are people that exist.

We have just barely begun to understand how the earth works, to say nothing of the rest of the universe. So, how could we even begin to understand what the thinking or logic of an all powerful God might be, especially regarding how He wants to be worshiped? Note that I capitalized the word "God" and pronouns referring to Him. "All powerful" makes such capitalization an at least minimal honor I could do to One so great.

[BADecker]

I'm gonna provide you a link so you understand why your answer is a strawman. But first, I would ask that you re-read the question, and answer it as stated, rather than putting on the Christian lens and ignoring the question.

so, again. If there is a god, it is all powerful, and it wishes to be worshipped, how many religions could their possibly be?

The link following is something I constantly refer to myself. Debate and logic have a specific structure for a reason. Logical fallacies when committed by accident or habit obscure the truth. When committed deliberately, one has to wonder what the true motives of the person committing them are.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Regarding your link, thanks. But I am not interested in being trained into the limited logic of somebody else. I'll stick to my own limited logic.

If you want REAL logic, fill yourself on the Word of God, the Bible, and there's a good chance you'll wake up.

[Biomech]

I'm gonna provide you a link so you understand why your answer is a strawman. But first, I would ask that you re-read the question, and answer it as stated, rather than putting on the Christian lens and ignoring the question.

so, again. If there is a god, it is all powerful, and it wishes to be worshipped, how many religions could their possibly be?

The link following is something I constantly refer to myself. Debate and logic have a specific structure for a reason. Logical fallacies when committed by accident or habit obscure the truth. When committed deliberately, one has to wonder what the true motives of the person committing them are.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Regarding your link, thanks. But I am not interested in being trained into the limited logic of somebody else. I'll stick to my own limited logic.

If you want REAL logic, fill yourself on the Word of God, the Bible, and there's a good chance you'll wake up.

I was once a Christian minister, so you are the one who should check your assumptions. I deliberately do not capitalise 'god', as I find the concept to be... English hasn't the words for the depravity.

With every passing hour, we know more and more about the universe we live in. With each new discovery, the Christian paradigm has less place as anything but a reference for morality. And a rather poor one, since it openly advocates the death of billions.
Training in formal logic allows you a wider understanding of the world, not a limiting one. Without a framework to ask the requisite questions, one has to make assumptions based solely on emotion or unquantifiable data, which will always lead to error. It allows you to not assume, for instance, that the person you are debating has no knowledge of your axioms. A good example is this very discussion. You are proceeding from the axiom that god exists, and is active in the lives of believers. I hold no such belief, and therefore am challenging that axiom. In order for a man such as yourself to have any effect on my way of thinking, you must FIRST establish an axiom that we can agree on. Failing in this, further statements cannot be considered axiomatic.

I do not believe in any gods. You believe in three, most likely. (not all of Christendom is trinitarian). If you're not a trinitarian, you believe in still one more god than I do. The words of bronze age zealots without corroboration or evidence fail utterly to sway me, and probably any person who has a grasp of logic and is NOT raised as a theist. Those, like me, who were raised to believe and then spent a decade trying to make it fit reality, we will be almost impossible to sway to mythical thinking. You'd have to PROVE a thing that, by your axioms, is unprovable and should not be questioned. I, on the other hand, operate from the very basic axiom that a thing that cannot withstand scrutiny is false, and it's derivative corollary that a thing that cannot be proven, while worthy of discussion, should be given little weight.

In my pursuit of religion (initially with the goal of proving it true) I have found almost no difference in the basal paradigms of all of them. That these basal paradigms are also the pillars of civil society is undeniable, and could be construed as a plausible asset to religious thinking. Unfortunately, the VERY basic paradigm of all theistic religions is that a particular god or gods exist, and want to be worshipped. Since they all disagree horribly on the nature of that god, and it's name, characteristics, origins and motives, there is no possibility of all of them being true. The reverse, however is quite likely: That none of them are. Since all such religions call for the death of the unbeliever, or, worse, eternal condemnation to endless torture for the sin of using the brain that supposedly was given by the gods, one has to examine the motives of the authors. That's a mixed bag, but the basal paradigm in all of them was that the leaders of the religions be given ultimate authority over the populace because "god said so" and that is not to be questioned. This meme has been outlandishly successful, allowing kings and other brigands to lead thousands to their deaths on the field of battle. It has been said that more men have died in the name of god than from any other cause. It's not true, but it's not far from it. At root, all wars are economic, but without some emotional cause to rally the masses, they won't occur. That religion is such an easy one to push into our (still primitive) emotional mind is a very serious argument AGAINST the utility of extant relgions if the goal is to make better human beings. Another of those oft repeated but false memes is that there are no atheists in foxholes. Again, it's untrue, but the people saying it are universally religious, and just as universally, are not thinking. If saying that being a paid killer requires relgion is considered to be an asset, then do you really think someone seeking peaceable coexistence would consider your religion meritorious?

I could go on for hours on this. But I simply have better things to do. It was all-consuming for more than ten years of my life. As I approach my 47th birthday, I find that while it still has the power to piss me off, I simply cannot devote the time and resources to bashing the idiocy of religion that I once could. In my own life, suffice it to say that becoming an atheist, while difficult due to the systematic brainwashing inherent in being raised religious, has been among the very best decisions I ever made. It has allowed me to pursue things that have actually benefitted me, it has allowed me to understand that being who I am is not egregious in itself, that violent thoughts are not immoral, only violent actions, and really a large number of other assets. Turning my back on religion has quantifiably improved my life in ways that I cannot enumerate without taking up reams of paper or pages of forum space. I no longer wake up feeling I'm cursed because I'm different from those around me. I no longer envy the lives of the clergy, as I got everything I have honestly. If I ever do drive a luxury automobile or live in a grand house, I will have earned it, not guilted a bunch of poor bastards into giving me what they earned for no return. Unlike when I was a Christian, I can face the man in the mirror without him condemning me, unless I've actually done something wrong. I also no longer have to wonder why it's considered ok for people to do horrible things as long as an innocent is punished (another pillar of your religion). I now understand it fully. It's a trick. It always was. When you give your autonomy to another, you give up much MUCH more than you can imagine. While I do not believe in an immortal soul, the concept is useful metaphorically. Mine is not for sale, and the rent is very high. You, and others who believe these things, have given yours away for free, and the only return you will ever get from it if you TRULY believe, is a warm fuzzy feeling as your Clergy, who are atheist to the core, sell you down the river.

I have, by the way, employed several deliberate logical fallacies in the above. For the most part, it conforms to logic. If you can identify them, you will be far more enlightened in your limited view than you were an hour ago. Regardless of your faith.

[Spendulus]

....Turning my back on religion has quantifiably improved my life in ways that I cannot enumerate without taking up reams of paper or pages of forum space. .....

This is true of me also, but I do worry over the possibility of hot preachers' daughters becoming extinct.

[BADecker]

I'm gonna provide you a link so you understand why your answer is a strawman. But first, I would ask that you re-read the question, and answer it as stated, rather than putting on the Christian lens and ignoring the question.

so, again. If there is a god, it is all powerful, and it wishes to be worshipped, how many religions could their possibly be?

The link following is something I constantly refer to myself. Debate and logic have a specific structure for a reason. Logical fallacies when committed by accident or habit obscure the truth. When committed deliberately, one has to wonder what the true motives of the person committing them are.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Regarding your link, thanks. But I am not interested in being trained into the limited logic of somebody else. I'll stick to my own limited logic.

If you want REAL logic, fill yourself on the Word of God, the Bible, and there's a good chance you'll wake up.

I was once a Christian minister, so you are the one who should check your assumptions. I deliberately do not capitalise 'god', as I find the concept to be... English hasn't the words for the depravity.

With every passing hour, we know more and more about the universe we live in. With each new discovery, the Christian paradigm has less place as anything but a reference for morality. And a rather poor one, since it openly advocates the death of billions.
Training in formal logic allows you a wider understanding of the world, not a limiting one. Without a framework to ask the requisite questions, one has to make assumptions based solely on emotion or unquantifiable data, which will always lead to error. It allows you to not assume, for instance, that the person you are debating has no knowledge of your axioms. A good example is this very discussion. You are proceeding from the axiom that god exists, and is active in the lives of believers. I hold no such belief, and therefore am challenging that axiom. In order for a man such as yourself to have any effect on my way of thinking, you must FIRST establish an axiom that we can agree on. Failing in this, further statements cannot be considered axiomatic.

I do not believe in any gods. You believe in three, most likely. (not all of Christendom is trinitarian). If you're not a trinitarian, you believe in still one more god than I do. The words of bronze age zealots without corroboration or evidence fail utterly to sway me, and probably any person who has a grasp of logic and is NOT raised as a theist. Those, like me, who were raised to believe and then spent a decade trying to make it fit reality, we will be almost impossible to sway to mythical thinking. You'd have to PROVE a thing that, by your axioms, is unprovable and should not be questioned. I, on the other hand, operate from the very basic axiom that a thing that cannot withstand scrutiny is false, and it's derivative corollary that a thing that cannot be proven, while worthy of discussion, should be given little weight.

In my pursuit of religion (initially with the goal of proving it true) I have found almost no difference in the basal paradigms of all of them. That these basal paradigms are also the pillars of civil society is undeniable, and could be construed as a plausible asset to religious thinking. Unfortunately, the VERY basic paradigm of all theistic religions is that a particular god or gods exist, and want to be worshipped. Since they all disagree horribly on the nature of that god, and it's name, characteristics, origins and motives, there is no possibility of all of them being true. The reverse, however is quite likely: That none of them are. Since all such religions call for the death of the unbeliever, or, worse, eternal condemnation to endless torture for the sin of using the brain that supposedly was given by the gods, one has to examine the motives of the authors. That's a mixed bag, but the basal paradigm in all of them was that the leaders of the religions be given ultimate authority over the populace because "god said so" and that is not to be questioned. This meme has been outlandishly successful, allowing kings and other brigands to lead thousands to their deaths on the field of battle. It has been said that more men have died in the name of god than from any other cause. It's not true, but it's not far from it. At root, all wars are economic, but without some emotional cause to rally the masses, they won't occur. That religion is such an easy one to push into our (still primitive) emotional mind is a very serious argument AGAINST the utility of extant relgions if the goal is to make better human beings. Another of those oft repeated but false memes is that there are no atheists in foxholes. Again, it's untrue, but the people saying it are universally religious, and just as universally, are not thinking. If saying that being a paid killer requires relgion is considered to be an asset, then do you really think someone seeking peaceable coexistence would consider your religion meritorious?

I could go on for hours on this. But I simply have better things to do. It was all-consuming for more than ten years of my life. As I approach my 47th birthday, I find that while it still has the power to piss me off, I simply cannot devote the time and resources to bashing the idiocy of religion that I once could. In my own life, suffice it to say that becoming an atheist, while difficult due to the systematic brainwashing inherent in being raised religious, has been among the very best decisions I ever made. It has allowed me to pursue things that have actually benefitted me, it has allowed me to understand that being who I am is not egregious in itself, that violent thoughts are not immoral, only violent actions, and really a large number of other assets. Turning my back on religion has quantifiably improved my life in ways that I cannot enumerate without taking up reams of paper or pages of forum space. I no longer wake up feeling I'm cursed because I'm different from those around me. I no longer envy the lives of the clergy, as I got everything I have honestly. If I ever do drive a luxury automobile or live in a grand house, I will have earned it, not guilted a bunch of poor bastards into giving me what they earned for no return. Unlike when I was a Christian, I can face the man in the mirror without him condemning me, unless I've actually done something wrong. I also no longer have to wonder why it's considered ok for people to do horrible things as long as an innocent is punished (another pillar of your religion). I now understand it fully. It's a trick. It always was. When you give your autonomy to another, you give up much MUCH more than you can imagine. While I do not believe in an immortal soul, the concept is useful metaphorically. Mine is not for sale, and the rent is very high. You, and others who believe these things, have given yours away for free, and the only return you will ever get from it if you TRULY believe, is a warm fuzzy feeling as your Clergy, who are atheist to the core, sell you down the river.

I have, by the way, employed several deliberate logical fallacies in the above. For the most part, it conforms to logic. If you can identify them, you will be far more enlightened in your limited view than you were an hour ago. Regardless of your faith.

I want to thank you for telling me that you were once a Christian minister. It saves a lot of time. Here's what I mean.

Perhaps you remember Hebrews 6:4-6. If you don't, you certainly know how to look it up if you want. A modern English version says it this way:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

If you truly had been a believer back when you were a Christian, you may as well be happy, now, for the short time of life that remains for you.

It saves me the trouble of answering your writing. I know it won't do you any good since you can't be brought back at this stage. I can go on to better things.

And thank you for, as you said it, employing several logical fallacies in the above. This way anybody else who reads your stuff will realize that you were not expressing things clearly, as they might have been expressed. This way, other folks have a chance to keep from simply sucking in your garbage, because of the simple fact that you have told them that some of it is not logical.

It would have been fun, however, to tear it apart. But like you, I have better things to do.

[Biomech]

I'm gonna provide you a link so you understand why your answer is a strawman. But first, I would ask that you re-read the question, and answer it as stated, rather than putting on the Christian lens and ignoring the question.

so, again. If there is a god, it is all powerful, and it wishes to be worshipped, how many religions could their possibly be?

The link following is something I constantly refer to myself. Debate and logic have a specific structure for a reason. Logical fallacies when committed by accident or habit obscure the truth. When committed deliberately, one has to wonder what the true motives of the person committing them are.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Regarding your link, thanks. But I am not interested in being trained into the limited logic of somebody else. I'll stick to my own limited logic.

If you want REAL logic, fill yourself on the Word of God, the Bible, and there's a good chance you'll wake up.

I was once a Christian minister, so you are the one who should check your assumptions. I deliberately do not capitalise 'god', as I find the concept to be... English hasn't the words for the depravity.

With every passing hour, we know more and more about the universe we live in. With each new discovery, the Christian paradigm has less place as anything but a reference for morality. And a rather poor one, since it openly advocates the death of billions.
Training in formal logic allows you a wider understanding of the world, not a limiting one. Without a framework to ask the requisite questions, one has to make assumptions based solely on emotion or unquantifiable data, which will always lead to error. It allows you to not assume, for instance, that the person you are debating has no knowledge of your axioms. A good example is this very discussion. You are proceeding from the axiom that god exists, and is active in the lives of believers. I hold no such belief, and therefore am challenging that axiom. In order for a man such as yourself to have any effect on my way of thinking, you must FIRST establish an axiom that we can agree on. Failing in this, further statements cannot be considered axiomatic.

I do not believe in any gods. You believe in three, most likely. (not all of Christendom is trinitarian). If you're not a trinitarian, you believe in still one more god than I do. The words of bronze age zealots without corroboration or evidence fail utterly to sway me, and probably any person who has a grasp of logic and is NOT raised as a theist. Those, like me, who were raised to believe and then spent a decade trying to make it fit reality, we will be almost impossible to sway to mythical thinking. You'd have to PROVE a thing that, by your axioms, is unprovable and should not be questioned. I, on the other hand, operate from the very basic axiom that a thing that cannot withstand scrutiny is false, and it's derivative corollary that a thing that cannot be proven, while worthy of discussion, should be given little weight.

In my pursuit of religion (initially with the goal of proving it true) I have found almost no difference in the basal paradigms of all of them. That these basal paradigms are also the pillars of civil society is undeniable, and could be construed as a plausible asset to religious thinking. Unfortunately, the VERY basic paradigm of all theistic religions is that a particular god or gods exist, and want to be worshipped. Since they all disagree horribly on the nature of that god, and it's name, characteristics, origins and motives, there is no possibility of all of them being true. The reverse, however is quite likely: That none of them are. Since all such religions call for the death of the unbeliever, or, worse, eternal condemnation to endless torture for the sin of using the brain that supposedly was given by the gods, one has to examine the motives of the authors. That's a mixed bag, but the basal paradigm in all of them was that the leaders of the religions be given ultimate authority over the populace because "god said so" and that is not to be questioned. This meme has been outlandishly successful, allowing kings and other brigands to lead thousands to their deaths on the field of battle. It has been said that more men have died in the name of god than from any other cause. It's not true, but it's not far from it. At root, all wars are economic, but without some emotional cause to rally the masses, they won't occur. That religion is such an easy one to push into our (still primitive) emotional mind is a very serious argument AGAINST the utility of extant relgions if the goal is to make better human beings. Another of those oft repeated but false memes is that there are no atheists in foxholes. Again, it's untrue, but the people saying it are universally religious, and just as universally, are not thinking. If saying that being a paid killer requires relgion is considered to be an asset, then do you really think someone seeking peaceable coexistence would consider your religion meritorious?

I could go on for hours on this. But I simply have better things to do. It was all-consuming for more than ten years of my life. As I approach my 47th birthday, I find that while it still has the power to piss me off, I simply cannot devote the time and resources to bashing the idiocy of religion that I once could. In my own life, suffice it to say that becoming an atheist, while difficult due to the systematic brainwashing inherent in being raised religious, has been among the very best decisions I ever made. It has allowed me to pursue things that have actually benefitted me, it has allowed me to understand that being who I am is not egregious in itself, that violent thoughts are not immoral, only violent actions, and really a large number of other assets. Turning my back on religion has quantifiably improved my life in ways that I cannot enumerate without taking up reams of paper or pages of forum space. I no longer wake up feeling I'm cursed because I'm different from those around me. I no longer envy the lives of the clergy, as I got everything I have honestly. If I ever do drive a luxury automobile or live in a grand house, I will have earned it, not guilted a bunch of poor bastards into giving me what they earned for no return. Unlike when I was a Christian, I can face the man in the mirror without him condemning me, unless I've actually done something wrong. I also no longer have to wonder why it's considered ok for people to do horrible things as long as an innocent is punished (another pillar of your religion). I now understand it fully. It's a trick. It always was. When you give your autonomy to another, you give up much MUCH more than you can imagine. While I do not believe in an immortal soul, the concept is useful metaphorically. Mine is not for sale, and the rent is very high. You, and others who believe these things, have given yours away for free, and the only return you will ever get from it if you TRULY believe, is a warm fuzzy feeling as your Clergy, who are atheist to the core, sell you down the river.

I have, by the way, employed several deliberate logical fallacies in the above. For the most part, it conforms to logic. If you can identify them, you will be far more enlightened in your limited view than you were an hour ago. Regardless of your faith.

I want to thank you for telling me that you were once a Christian minister. It saves a lot of time. Here's what I mean.

Perhaps you remember Hebrews 6:4-6. If you don't, you certainly know how to look it up if you want. A modern English version says it this way:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

If you truly had been a believer back when you were a Christian, you may as well be happy, now, for the short time of life that remains for you.

It saves me the trouble of answering your writing. I know it won't do you any good since you can't be brought back at this stage. I can go on to better things.

And thank you for, as you said it, employing several logical fallacies in the above. This way anybody else who reads your stuff will realize that you were not expressing things clearly, as they might have been expressed. This way, other folks have a chance to keep from simply sucking in your garbage, because of the simple fact that you have told them that some of it is not logical.

It would have been fun, however, to tear it apart. But like you, I have better things to do.

It was fun, and I do indeed know the scripture.

You just employed, much less subtly, the same logical fallacy I did. Ad-hominem. I did it to see if you were paying attention, and left the final remark to see if you'd call me on it. My reasoning was neither murky nor illogical, but in a couple of places it was hard to quantify. I used an appeal to popularity (from your side of the argument), again, to see if you were paying attention. That was the extent of it.

As for "crucifying Christ all over again", I'd have not crucified him (had he existed) in the first place. The words attributed to him in the gospels damn all of Christianity from that point on. If I were to choose one of the founding fathers of Christianity to crucify, or better, flay and impale, it would be Paul/Saul. the first man to say "what the captain meant was..." and then twist it into something unrecognizable.

As to your attempt at damning me...

Again, you have to convince a person of the TRUTH of what you say before you can threaten them with it's consequences. I fear neither hellfire nor angels with swords for tongues. It's no more real to me than Zeus's thunderbolts or Hermes' boots. To quote a band I like but do not love: "I reject all the biblical views of the truth, Dismiss it as the folklore of the times". In that context, it actually makes some sense. With Judaism falling apart and the nascent influence of Rome, it was going to be replaced by something. Even given the level of education in the law that was part of Judaism, most of the people of the time were uneducated and had little access to education. This made them excellent targets for a new take on an old theme. That Christianity was the one that took off is a bit surprising, as several other contenders were more human friendly, but it did indeed go down that way. Mostly, I think, due to the Emperor Constantine "converting" and establishing your current canon.

[BADecker]

I'm gonna provide you a link so you understand why your answer is a strawman. But first, I would ask that you re-read the question, and answer it as stated, rather than putting on the Christian lens and ignoring the question.

so, again. If there is a god, it is all powerful, and it wishes to be worshipped, how many religions could their possibly be?

The link following is something I constantly refer to myself. Debate and logic have a specific structure for a reason. Logical fallacies when committed by accident or habit obscure the truth. When committed deliberately, one has to wonder what the true motives of the person committing them are.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Regarding your link, thanks. But I am not interested in being trained into the limited logic of somebody else. I'll stick to my own limited logic.

If you want REAL logic, fill yourself on the Word of God, the Bible, and there's a good chance you'll wake up.

I was once a Christian minister, so you are the one who should check your assumptions. I deliberately do not capitalise 'god', as I find the concept to be... English hasn't the words for the depravity.

With every passing hour, we know more and more about the universe we live in. With each new discovery, the Christian paradigm has less place as anything but a reference for morality. And a rather poor one, since it openly advocates the death of billions.
Training in formal logic allows you a wider understanding of the world, not a limiting one. Without a framework to ask the requisite questions, one has to make assumptions based solely on emotion or unquantifiable data, which will always lead to error. It allows you to not assume, for instance, that the person you are debating has no knowledge of your axioms. A good example is this very discussion. You are proceeding from the axiom that god exists, and is active in the lives of believers. I hold no such belief, and therefore am challenging that axiom. In order for a man such as yourself to have any effect on my way of thinking, you must FIRST establish an axiom that we can agree on. Failing in this, further statements cannot be considered axiomatic.

I do not believe in any gods. You believe in three, most likely. (not all of Christendom is trinitarian). If you're not a trinitarian, you believe in still one more god than I do. The words of bronze age zealots without corroboration or evidence fail utterly to sway me, and probably any person who has a grasp of logic and is NOT raised as a theist. Those, like me, who were raised to believe and then spent a decade trying to make it fit reality, we will be almost impossible to sway to mythical thinking. You'd have to PROVE a thing that, by your axioms, is unprovable and should not be questioned. I, on the other hand, operate from the very basic axiom that a thing that cannot withstand scrutiny is false, and it's derivative corollary that a thing that cannot be proven, while worthy of discussion, should be given little weight.

In my pursuit of religion (initially with the goal of proving it true) I have found almost no difference in the basal paradigms of all of them. That these basal paradigms are also the pillars of civil society is undeniable, and could be construed as a plausible asset to religious thinking. Unfortunately, the VERY basic paradigm of all theistic religions is that a particular god or gods exist, and want to be worshipped. Since they all disagree horribly on the nature of that god, and it's name, characteristics, origins and motives, there is no possibility of all of them being true. The reverse, however is quite likely: That none of them are. Since all such religions call for the death of the unbeliever, or, worse, eternal condemnation to endless torture for the sin of using the brain that supposedly was given by the gods, one has to examine the motives of the authors. That's a mixed bag, but the basal paradigm in all of them was that the leaders of the religions be given ultimate authority over the populace because "god said so" and that is not to be questioned. This meme has been outlandishly successful, allowing kings and other brigands to lead thousands to their deaths on the field of battle. It has been said that more men have died in the name of god than from any other cause. It's not true, but it's not far from it. At root, all wars are economic, but without some emotional cause to rally the masses, they won't occur. That religion is such an easy one to push into our (still primitive) emotional mind is a very serious argument AGAINST the utility of extant relgions if the goal is to make better human beings. Another of those oft repeated but false memes is that there are no atheists in foxholes. Again, it's untrue, but the people saying it are universally religious, and just as universally, are not thinking. If saying that being a paid killer requires relgion is considered to be an asset, then do you really think someone seeking peaceable coexistence would consider your religion meritorious?

I could go on for hours on this. But I simply have better things to do. It was all-consuming for more than ten years of my life. As I approach my 47th birthday, I find that while it still has the power to piss me off, I simply cannot devote the time and resources to bashing the idiocy of religion that I once could. In my own life, suffice it to say that becoming an atheist, while difficult due to the systematic brainwashing inherent in being raised religious, has been among the very best decisions I ever made. It has allowed me to pursue things that have actually benefitted me, it has allowed me to understand that being who I am is not egregious in itself, that violent thoughts are not immoral, only violent actions, and really a large number of other assets. Turning my back on religion has quantifiably improved my life in ways that I cannot enumerate without taking up reams of paper or pages of forum space. I no longer wake up feeling I'm cursed because I'm different from those around me. I no longer envy the lives of the clergy, as I got everything I have honestly. If I ever do drive a luxury automobile or live in a grand house, I will have earned it, not guilted a bunch of poor bastards into giving me what they earned for no return. Unlike when I was a Christian, I can face the man in the mirror without him condemning me, unless I've actually done something wrong. I also no longer have to wonder why it's considered ok for people to do horrible things as long as an innocent is punished (another pillar of your religion). I now understand it fully. It's a trick. It always was. When you give your autonomy to another, you give up much MUCH more than you can imagine. While I do not believe in an immortal soul, the concept is useful metaphorically. Mine is not for sale, and the rent is very high. You, and others who believe these things, have given yours away for free, and the only return you will ever get from it if you TRULY believe, is a warm fuzzy feeling as your Clergy, who are atheist to the core, sell you down the river.

I have, by the way, employed several deliberate logical fallacies in the above. For the most part, it conforms to logic. If you can identify them, you will be far more enlightened in your limited view than you were an hour ago. Regardless of your faith.

I want to thank you for telling me that you were once a Christian minister. It saves a lot of time. Here's what I mean.

Perhaps you remember Hebrews 6:4-6. If you don't, you certainly know how to look it up if you want. A modern English version says it this way:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

If you truly had been a believer back when you were a Christian, you may as well be happy, now, for the short time of life that remains for you.

It saves me the trouble of answering your writing. I know it won't do you any good since you can't be brought back at this stage. I can go on to better things.

And thank you for, as you said it, employing several logical fallacies in the above. This way anybody else who reads your stuff will realize that you were not expressing things clearly, as they might have been expressed. This way, other folks have a chance to keep from simply sucking in your garbage, because of the simple fact that you have told them that some of it is not logical.

It would have been fun, however, to tear it apart. But like you, I have better things to do.

It was fun, and I do indeed know the scripture.

You just employed, much less subtly, the same logical fallacy I did. Ad-hominem. I did it to see if you were paying attention, and left the final remark to see if you'd call me on it. My reasoning was neither murky nor illogical, but in a couple of places it was hard to quantify. I used an appeal to popularity (from your side of the argument), again, to see if you were paying attention. That was the extent of it.

As for "crucifying Christ all over again", I'd have not crucified him (had he existed) in the first place. The words attributed to him in the gospels damn all of Christianity from that point on. If I were to choose one of the founding fathers of Christianity to crucify, or better, flay and impale, it would be Paul/Saul. the first man to say "what the captain meant was..." and then twist it into something unrecognizable.

As to your attempt at damning me...

Again, you have to convince a person of the TRUTH of what you say before you can threaten them with it's consequences. I fear neither hellfire nor angels with swords for tongues. It's no more real to me than Zeus's thunderbolts or Hermes' boots. To quote a band I like but do not love: "I reject all the biblical views of the truth, Dismiss it as the folklore of the times". In that context, it actually makes some sense. With Judaism falling apart and the nascent influence of Rome, it was going to be replaced by something. Even given the level of education in the law that was part of Judaism, most of the people of the time were uneducated and had little access to education. This made them excellent targets for a new take on an old theme. That Christianity was the one that took off is a bit surprising, as several other contenders were more human friendly, but it did indeed go down that way. Mostly, I think, due to the Emperor Constantine "converting" and establishing your current canon.

I certainly am not attempting to damn you. Jesus said that he was there to save people, not condemn them. The thing that would condemn people would be the words that Jesus spoke... on the last day. How much less any words that I might seem to speak for the damning of anybody?

[Biomech]

As you will

We're talking around each other, so I shall bow out for now.

[Wilikon]

Student Ripping up the Koran Bible - Muslim Christian Mob enraged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=125gWJsgZcM

[Spendulus]

Student Ripping up the Koran Bible - Muslim Christian Mob enraged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=125gWJsgZcM

Is it equally insulting and offensive if I have a copy of the Koran on my computer and hit the Delete Key.

[Wilikon]

Student Ripping up the Koran Bible - Muslim Christian Mob enraged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=125gWJsgZcM

Is it equally insulting and offensive if I have a copy of the Koran on my computer and hit the Delete Key.

Does your computer face mecca? If not that already was offensive...

[BADecker]

Student Ripping up the Koran Bible - Muslim Christian Mob enraged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=125gWJsgZcM

Is it equally insulting and offensive if I have a copy of the Koran on my computer and hit the Delete Key.

Does your computer face mecca? If not that already was offensive...

Curious problem. If the monitor faces Mecca, then you don't. If you face mecca, then the monitor doesn't. If you use a mirror (so both you and the monitor face Mecca), not only do you need to read everything in reverse, but the mirror doesn't face Mecca. What about using optic fibers in some way? Could that be made to work?

[Wilikon]

Student Ripping up the Koran Bible - Muslim Christian Mob enraged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=125gWJsgZcM

Is it equally insulting and offensive if I have a copy of the Koran on my computer and hit the Delete Key.

Does your computer face mecca? If not that already was offensive...

Curious problem. If the monitor faces Mecca, then you don't. If you face mecca, then the monitor doesn't. If you use a mirror (so both you and the monitor face Mecca), not only do you need to read everything in reverse, but the mirror doesn't face Mecca. What about using optic fibers in some way? Could that be made to work?

If you read the kuran in a mirror so its words are reversed, does it teach you about Jesus?

[BADecker]

Student Ripping up the Koran Bible - Muslim Christian Mob enraged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=125gWJsgZcM

Is it equally insulting and offensive if I have a copy of the Koran on my computer and hit the Delete Key.

Does your computer face mecca? If not that already was offensive...

Curious problem. If the monitor faces Mecca, then you don't. If you face mecca, then the monitor doesn't. If you use a mirror (so both you and the monitor face Mecca), not only do you need to read everything in reverse, but the mirror doesn't face Mecca. What about using optic fibers in some way? Could that be made to work?

If you read the kuran in a mirror so its words are reversed, does it teach you about Jesus?

Hey! Maybe that's where English came from.