God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[The Greater Union of Kinnota]

I do not personally believe in a deity or higher force. However, I am open to the idea of there being a "god," once adequate and legitimate evidence is provided. That being said, I'm still leery of organised religion (except perhaps Buddhism). I dunno, religion's track record is a bit sketchy, and I'd rather not have anything to do with it.

[Jute]

I do not personally believe in a deity or higher force. However, I am open to the idea of there being a "god," once adequate and legitimate evidence is provided. That being said, I'm still leery of organised religion (except perhaps Buddhism). I dunno, religion's track record is a bit sketchy, and I'd rather not have anything to do with it.

See the FAQ in the opening thread for that. The track record of religion is about as sketchy as the one of organized politics, if not less so.

[The Greater Union of Kinnota]

I do not personally believe in a deity or higher force. However, I am open to the idea of there being a "god," once adequate and legitimate evidence is provided. That being said, I'm still leery of organised religion (except perhaps Buddhism). I dunno, religion's track record is a bit sketchy, and I'd rather not have anything to do with it.

See the FAQ in the opening thread for that. The track record of religion is about as sketchy as the one of organized politics, if not less so.

I think religion has done some good for people throughout history, indeed. In fact, many developments in human history may not have come about without it. However, I feel that religions' legacy in modern times (and before too) is not a wholly positive one, and one I personally cannot get behind.

[King Stannis Baratheon]

The the only God is R'hllor and I am Azor Ahai come again.

I do not personally believe in a deity or higher force. However, I am open to the idea of there being a "god," once adequate and legitimate evidence is provided. That being said, I'm still leery of organised religion (except perhaps Buddhism). I dunno, religion's track record is a bit sketchy, and I'd rather not have anything to do with it.

Look at the flames and it'll all be so clear to you.

[Kainesia]

The the only God is R'hllor and I am Azor Ahai come again.

I do not personally believe in a deity or higher force. However, I am open to the idea of there being a "god," once adequate and legitimate evidence is provided. That being said, I'm still leery of organised religion (except perhaps Buddhism). I dunno, religion's track record is a bit sketchy, and I'd rather not have anything to do with it.

Look at the flames and it'll all be so clear to you.

Shut it stannis, the Old Gods will show you what's what!

[Vilatania]

So..not gonna quote the post to entice further discussion. Reading the rest of my posts reveals that I posted it as a method to suggest that that is how they sounded to me. Stop trying to resurrect a dead horse.

Persecution is also defined as "persistent annoyance or harassment." this accurately describes door to door Christians, people who intentionally leave pamphlets in every stall at a public restroom, those that over hear me saying I don't believe in God and then start barking about how I am going to hell or that i'm evil or that I eat babies. Actually come to think of it, since you want to talk about violence again...my friend said that hell sounded like a nice place and the Christian he was talking to grabbed him by the throat and tried to throw him off a 10 foot platform. This is the shit that I see and deal with on a daily basis.

Church and State not separated? There are still laws that are inspired by Religion. There are still Christians trying to push anti abortion laws, stop stem cell research force laws to be created that ease their ability to brain wash people. They are trying to infringe on the rights of minorities like LGBT. Hell in some countries it's still possible for Churches to impose taxes on people. In some places you find that Atheists aren't allowed to join groups like the boy scouts of America.

You called me Prejudiced. Prejudice first definition "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." Not an accurate description of me since my standpoint is based on evidence, and actual experiences with Christians(and Muslims). I hate religion, passionately but that doesn't make me prejudiced.

Also, your biased.

[Othelos]

So..not gonna quote the post to entice further discussion. Reading the rest of my posts reveals that I posted it as a method to suggest that that is how they sounded to me. Stop trying to resurrect a dead horse.

Persecution is also defined as "persistent annoyance or harassment." this accurately describes door to door Christians, people who intentionally leave pamphlets in every stall at a public restroom, those that over hear me saying I don't believe in God and then start barking about how I am going to hell or that i'm evil or that I eat babies. Actually come to think of it, since you want to talk about violence again...my friend said that hell sounded like a nice place and the Christian he was talking to grabbed him by the throat and tried to throw him off a 10 foot platform. This is the shit that I see and deal with on a daily basis.

Church and State not separated? There are still laws that are inspired by Religion. There are still Christians trying to push anti abortion laws, stop stem cell research force laws to be created that ease their ability to brain wash people. They are trying to infringe on the rights of minorities like LGBT. Hell in some countries it's still possible for Churches to impose taxes on people. In some places you find that Atheists aren't allowed to join groups like the boy scouts of America.

You called me Prejudiced. Prejudice first definition "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." Not an accurate description of me since my standpoint is based on evidence, and actual experiences with Christians(and Muslims). I hate religion, passionately but that doesn't make me prejudiced.

Also, your biased.

The persecution complex is one of the worst aspects of many Christians, besides the outright bigotry.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So..not gonna quote the post to entice further discussion. Reading the rest of my posts reveals that I posted it as a method to suggest that that is how they sounded to me. Stop trying to resurrect a dead horse.

The first rule of dead horses is don't talk about dead horses, even when it's telling other people not to talk about dead horses. But yes, lets move on.

Persecution is also defined as "persistent annoyance or harassment." this accurately describes door to door Christians, people who intentionally leave pamphlets in every stall at a public restroom, those that over hear me saying I don't believe in God and then start barking about how I am going to hell or that i'm evil or that I eat babies. Actually come to think of it, since you want to talk about violence again...my friend said that hell sounded like a nice place and the Christian he was talking to grabbed him by the throat and tried to throw him off a 10 foot platform. This is the shit that I see and deal with on a daily basis.

Hell of a second definition you got there, but the word is never used like that because it would be a loaded term in that context. It implies door-to-door missionaries are on par with nazis, KKK, and other such miscreants.

Church and State not separated? There are still laws that are inspired by Religion. There are still Christians trying to push anti abortion laws, stop stem cell research force laws to be created that ease their ability to brain wash people.

And they have the right to do that, but that these laws have yet to be passed nationally, let alone be passed citing religious reasons, means church and state are still separated.

They are trying to infringe on the rights of minorities like LGBT.

And failing in America.

Hell in some countries it's still possible for Churches to impose taxes on people.

Not in most developed nations.

In some places you find that Atheists aren't allowed to join groups like the boy scouts of America.

Which they get flak for, but I agree that this bad.

You called me Prejudiced. Prejudice first definition "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." Not an accurate description of me since my standpoint is based on evidence, and actual experiences with Christians(and Muslims). I hate religion, passionately but that doesn't make me prejudiced.

Passionately hating an ideology due to a minority is prejudice.

Also, your biased.

I'm an atheist. Try again.

[Clinical Idiots]

So..not gonna quote the post to entice further discussion. Reading the rest of my posts reveals that I posted it as a method to suggest that that is how they sounded to me. Stop trying to resurrect a dead horse.

The first rule of dead horses is don't talk about dead horses, even when it's telling other people not to talk about dead horses. But yes, lets move on.

Is the second rule to retract the first rule on grounds of basic logical bankruptcy?

[Vilatania]

@Pretantia

That bias comment wasn't directed towards you. It was to The Void or whatever his name is.

In any case you make good points, I still feel that as long as religion is 'trying' to impose it's agenda on the state then they haven't accepted the separation.

I still disagree that my hatred is prejudice. I'm not committing acts of violence against religion, Nor do I consider myself associated to Atheists who do so because there is almost no connection between us aside from a universal disbelief in God. No guideline that we all are supposed to follow like the bible is to all Christians. We can agree to disagree on just how "different" Christians are from one another if that's alright with you. I think most people are not grasping the why in my reasoning for classifying them as a singular group and why one Atheist is not the same as another Atheist.

[Twilight Imperium]

In any case you make good points, I still feel that as long as religion is 'trying' to impose it's agenda on the state then they haven't accepted the separation.

This, more or less. We're not using this as an argument that there's no separation between church and state, or any kind of slippery slope nonsense. Merely that attempting to make laws based solely in the dogma of one religion will make people not of that religion twitchy. Especially if said laws pass.

[The V O I D]

1. So..not gonna quote the post to entice further discussion. Reading the rest of my posts reveals that I posted it as a method to suggest that that is how they sounded to me. Stop trying to resurrect a dead horse.

2. Persecution is also defined as "persistent annoyance or harassment." this accurately describes door to door Christians, people who intentionally leave pamphlets in every stall at a public restroom, 3. those that over hear me saying I don't believe in God and then start barking about how I am going to hell or that i'm evil or that I eat babies. Actually come to think of it, since you want to talk about violence again...my friend said that hell sounded like a nice place and the Christian he was talking to grabbed him by the throat and tried to throw him off a 10 foot platform. This is the shit that I see and deal with on a daily basis.

4. Church and State not separated? There are still laws that are inspired by Religion. 5. There are still Christians trying to push anti abortion laws, stop stem cell research force laws to be created that ease their ability to brain wash people. 6. They are trying to infringe on the rights of minorities like LGBT. 7. Hell in some countries it's still possible for Churches to impose taxes on people. In some places you find that Atheists aren't allowed to join groups like the boy scouts of America.

8. You called me Prejudiced. Prejudice first definition "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." Not an accurate description of me since my standpoint is based on evidence, and actual experiences with Christians(and Muslims). I hate religion, passionately but that doesn't make me prejudiced.

9. Also, your biased.

1. Yes, let's forget that you called all Christians mentally ill. I think that's an astounding idea.
2. Uhuh. Please do explain how you aren't prejudiced for offering to join militant atheists who persecute Christians and mean to harm them?
3. Yes, let's judge an entire religion based on a minority. Bias? Lots. Prejudiced? Proven. Moving on.
4. Inspired by Religion. That doesn't mean the Church is physically apart of the State, and making those Laws themselves. People are suggesting those laws based on their religions, which they have the constitutional right to do in the U.S. So, again, you are very incorrect.
5. Which, again, they have the right to do in the U.S. according to the Constitution. It sounds like you're saying they shouldn't have those democratic rights... huh. Also, evidence to Christian brainwashing that isn't from a minority Christian group? Thanks.
6. Which is why ten (or more) out of fifty states are already LGBT legal marriage, and others are considering it.
7. "In some countries..." You mean, underdeveloped, uneducated to the extreme, non-first world nations like the U.S.? Ah, that makes sense.
8. So... you're not prejudiced, but you're prejudiced. Got it.
9. Explain how I am biased? You're the one suggesting that Christians have ADD, and saying we're all the same, and saying that we're persecuting you based on a minority group. Please do explain. I'd love to hear it.


You're not helping yourself sound less prejudiced, or biased, sir. If your intention in this post was to sound otherwise unbiased or nonprejudicial... you've failed.
Sorry.

[Vilatania]

Hmm where do I begin? I'm not responding you your posts about the mental disorder thing anymore. I've already explained myself half a dozen times or more and if you can't accept that then that's your problem. Not mine.

2. I never offered to join anything.

3. Bias =/= Prejudice

4. There is no incorrect. I have my opinion, you have yours.

5. I believe that any suggestion given by a religious follower who has their religion in mind when making the suggestion should be scrutinized more thoroughly than other suggestions yes. Remove their democratic rights? No.

6. States legalizing LGBT does not mean that Christians have stopped trying to infringe on their rights. It simply means that the state has done it's job.

7. So your saying Germany is un-developed/third world?

8. You may need to re-read that part of the post again. Hating something and being Prejudiced are different things.

9. I did not say anything about it being based on a minority group. Given how many times a day I encounter people like this I'd say it's hardly a minority. Your opinion is biased because you said yourself your catholic. So clearly your offended and think that anything that I say and do is incorrect or wrong. Such as when you said burning the bible is wrong. That's your opinion, your entitled to it but don't go telling me I'm wrong. It is also likely that you consider every other group in your religion to be a minority or wrong. That doesn't make you special, your all still Christians. You all are supposed to be using the same book to guide your actions. Minority or otherwise, you all claim you ARE following the book when you do good or bad things. Study of the book shows that to be true in both cases. The bible condones actions in some parts, and then condemns them in others.

[Slavaboostan]

I think these kind of discussions shouldn't take place in politics in the first place. They are energy consuming, efficiency killing debates that can go on for months.

Instead, just allow persons in political system to have faith in whatever they want, and discuss more useful things, for example immigration or something.

Seriously, political parties that keep falling on this point can leave the parliament immediately in my opinion, both theistic and atheistic.

That said, I don't know if God exists, and I will see when I am dead, that's what I believe in.

[The East Asian Post-Apocalyptic Pact]

9. I did not say anything about it being based on a minority group. Given how many times a day I encounter people like this I'd say it's hardly a minority. Your opinion is biased because you said yourself your catholic. So clearly your offended and think that anything that I say and do is incorrect or wrong. Such as when you said burning the bible is wrong. That's your opinion, your entitled to it but don't go telling me I'm wrong. It is also likely that you consider every other group in your religion to be a minority or wrong. That doesn't make you special, your all still Christians. You all are supposed to be using the same book to guide your actions. Minority or otherwise, you all claim you ARE following the book when you do good or bad things. Study of the book shows that to be true in both cases. The bible condones actions in some parts, and then condemns them in others.

Are you judging your perspective of Christians by Christians in one area? If so, that is bias.

[Jute]

I think these kind of discussions shouldn't take place in politics in the first place. They are energy consuming, efficiency killing debates that can go on for months.

Instead, just allow persons in political system to have faith in whatever they want, and discuss more useful things, for example immigration or something.

Seriously, political parties that keep falling on this point can leave the parliament immediately in my opinion, both theistic and atheistic.

That said, I don't know if God exists, and I will see when I am dead, that's what I believe in.

Good points, and it honestly seems to be an US-specific problems compared to other "Western" nations. God has hardly been object of debate here, last time it was in a gender pronouns debate here, where the young family minister suggested that God could be gender-neutral, too (not necessarily be referred to as "he")

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Yes, it's definitely true that Christianity and Islam in religion were responsible for most religious wars. That doesn't cut it when referring other worshippers of some other gods and then telling, "Hey, other religions do wars too, so not only Christianity and Islam". Those religious wars are nothing compared to the Crusades, and the various Jihad wars created in the name of Islam, the Crusades and the Jihads had led to much more death toll than some fringe Buddhist or Hindu war there.

but proportionally less than the Mayan wars and various tribal religious conflicts.

You point out some other war by a non-Christian or a non-Islamic religion when you don't realize, they're fringe, they're minor,

even thought they were proportionally larger?

and they're isolated compared to the known, infamous, bloody and violent Crusades and the Jihads by Islamic "whoevers"

can you name a religion more widespread than the Abrahamic one? you are confusing cause and effect. If you had several other equally wide spread religions that did not have holy wars you might have a point. when more than half the worlds population belong to one religion of course its wars are going to be more well known.

If Buddhism or Hinduism truly endorsed war, you have to expect so much violence and blood and so many severe Buddhist and Hindu religious wars, but history is a witness to the peaceful nature of the said two religions.

So you don't know anything about Hindu history or religion?
I recomend you read the Mahābhārata, and then consider how wars fought for an emperor is also a central holy figure is going to fall, but anything I bring up about the Hindu you are just going to blame on the Muslim so why bother.

First, you assume that the causes of the warfare you cited are indeed religious. You failed to take into account other more secular causes that might have triggered the wars. You yourself said that "not a single cause can be blamed for a war":

on could argue most religious wars were political in origin, wars rarely have one cause.

Yet, you continue to assert that what caused most of these wars are religious in origin. You contradict your previous assumptions.

Though I may be right in asserting that Christianity and Islam cause the most religious wars, at least in terms of severity (death toll), number and frequency, you manage to dodge that by saying "Hey, look at this, the Mayans are more proportionately larger!". Percentage or the proportion of people dying due to war or any more arbitrary statistics have no sense at all when you just declare that most of these wars are caused by religion, contradicting your previous assertion which is "most of these religious wars are political in origin". Even saying that Christianity and Islam are the most well-known wars so their wars are going to be famous will not cut it all, given your dubious assumptions.

Second, you do not understand the nature of religious systems, you do not understand "doctrine", you do not understand religious orthodoxy and you cannot differentiate that the doctrines espoused by a religion can be different from what its followers believe. Jesus Christ, for example, was clearly a pacifist and chastised Peter when he used a sword, unlike the Crusaders that massacred and killed. The religion of Buddhism also taught a doctrine of "ahimsa" or non-violence, Buddha taught no warfare and the teachings of Buddhism even encouraged Ashoka to quit warfare and become a more peaceful person, unlike the "sohei" warrior-monks of Sengoku Japan or some other "Buddhist war". You do not have any understanding all of these, gather all religious followers, for example, Buddhists and Christians into one group and accuse Buddhism and Christianity of actually committing the war, when in the end, nothing of their more violent followers were actually caused by Buddhist and Christian doctrines itself. Your reasoning is just the same with Vilatania here.

And, that, you're just going to say "They're religious people anyway! Religion still caused that!". I doubt that you even have an understanding of religious belief, even telling "quasi-religious" beliefs are religious and are to reinforce that "Religion is the cause of majority of wars". You can just point out a belief you find to be even remotely religious and tell that religion causes all the shit. You could do me a favor by reading Ninian Smart's 7 Dimensions of Religion. With your logic, we can also say World War II is a religious war since Hitler and the Nazis held on to religious beliefs of an "Aryan Master Race" or the "Lebensraum" or that Imperial Japan held on to ideas like the "Hakko ichiu", and that the Japanese Emperor was held as a god. Don't you want that, the deadliest war in human history a "religious war"? And, going by your hazy definition of "religious belief", I can just say otherwise that your atheistic beliefs (Are you an atheist? If not, well, sorry) are also religious ones.

[Slavaboostan]

I think these kind of discussions shouldn't take place in politics in the first place. They are energy consuming, efficiency killing debates that can go on for months.

Instead, just allow persons in political system to have faith in whatever they want, and discuss more useful things, for example immigration or something.

Seriously, political parties that keep falling on this point can leave the parliament immediately in my opinion, both theistic and atheistic.

That said, I don't know if God exists, and I will see when I am dead, that's what I believe in.

Good points, and it honestly seems to be an US-specific problems compared to other "Western" nations. God has hardly been object of debate here, last time it was in a gender pronouns debate here, where the young family minister suggested that God could be gender-neutral, too (not necessarily be referred to as "he")

Seems like in your country there's also too much time to debate, debating the gender pronoun of God as a politician is useless.

[Jute]

Good points, and it honestly seems to be an US-specific problems compared to other "Western" nations. God has hardly been object of debate here, last time it was in a gender pronouns debate here, where the young family minister suggested that God could be gender-neutral, too (not necessarily be referred to as "he")

Seems like in your country there's also too much time to debate, debating the gender pronoun of God as a politician is useless.

Eh, I think everyone agreed that that was a strange thing for the family minister to do. And it was God in general, not as a politician.

[Vilatania]

9. I did not say anything about it being based on a minority group. Given how many times a day I encounter people like this I'd say it's hardly a minority. Your opinion is biased because you said yourself your catholic. So clearly your offended and think that anything that I say and do is incorrect or wrong. Such as when you said burning the bible is wrong. That's your opinion, your entitled to it but don't go telling me I'm wrong. It is also likely that you consider every other group in your religion to be a minority or wrong. That doesn't make you special, your all still Christians. You all are supposed to be using the same book to guide your actions. Minority or otherwise, you all claim you ARE following the book when you do good or bad things. Study of the book shows that to be true in both cases. The bible condones actions in some parts, and then condemns them in others.

Are you judging your perspective of Christians by Christians in one area? If so, that is bias.

Actually no. I'm basing it on personal experience in 12 US states, England, Scotland, Spain, Italy, as well as encountering numerous muslims in several African Countries as well as some experience in United Arab Emirate. I've also encountered Christians from all over the parts of the US that I Haven't been too while serving in the Navy and met ALOT of different people. Did I mention I've been to St. Peter's Square?

[Slavaboostan]

Seems like in your country there's also too much time to debate, debating the gender pronoun of God as a politician is useless.

Eh, I think everyone agreed that that was a strange thing for the family minister to do. And it was God in general, not as a politician.

I still suppose a minister, I suppose this minister is a MP in politics, shouldn't make such redicilious remarks. You're there to run a country, not discuss what God is or not is.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

I do not personally believe in a deity or higher force. However, I am open to the idea of there being a "god," once adequate and legitimate evidence is provided. That being said, I'm still leery of organised religion (except perhaps Buddhism). I dunno, religion's track record is a bit sketchy, and I'd rather not have anything to do with it.

See the FAQ in the opening thread for that. The track record of religion is about as sketchy as the one of organized politics, if not less so.

Now AS SKETCHY I can believe.
I can believe religion being more sketchy than politics but not less sketchy.

Religion is also pretty damn divisive too.

Then again so is politics.

[Sociobiology]

but proportionally less than the Mayan wars and various tribal religious conflicts.


even thought they were proportionally larger?


can you name a religion more widespread than the Abrahamic one? you are confusing cause and effect. If you had several other equally wide spread religions that did not have holy wars you might have a point. when more than half the worlds population belong to one religion of course its wars are going to be more well known.



So you don't know anything about Hindu history or religion?
I recomend you read the Mahābhārata, and then consider how wars fought for an emperor is also a central holy figure is going to fall, but anything I bring up about the Hindu you are just going to blame on the Muslim so why bother.

First, you assume that the causes of the warfare you cited are indeed religious. You failed to take into account other more secular causes that might have triggered the wars. You yourself said that "not a single cause can be blamed for a war":

the Mayan went to war to get sacrifices for their god, not a lot of ambiguity there.

on could argue most religious wars were political in origin, wars rarely have one cause.

Yet, you continue to assert that what caused most of these wars are religious in origin.

no I just don't dismiss it offhand as a possible cause just because the religion is question is not Islam. you might try reading the part that isn't underlined.

Though I may be right in asserting that Christianity and Islam cause the most religious wars, at least in terms of severity (death toll), number and frequency, you manage to dodge that by saying "Hey, look at this, the Mayans are more proportionately larger!". Percentage or the proportion of people dying due to war or any more arbitrary statistics have no sense at all.

sure it does population has an undeniable direct impact on the death toll, it would be irresponsible not to account for it.


when you just declare that most of these wars are caused by religion, contradicting your previous assertion which is "most of these religious wars are political in origin".
which I said were?

Even saying that Christianity and Islam are the most well-known wars so their wars are going to be famous will not cut it all, given your dubious assumptions.

I said you were picking them out because they were the ones familiar to you, big difference.

Second, you do not understand the nature of religious systems, you do not understand "doctrine", you do not understand religious orthodoxy

thats a pretty bold claim, what evidence do you have?

and you cannot differentiate that the doctrines espoused by a religion can be different from what its followers believe.

Sure I can, I just don't think the former matters.

Jesus Christ, for example, was clearly a pacifist and chastised Peter when he used a sword,

while also supporting an older book that supported war.

unlike the Crusaders that massacred and killed.

just like the wars described in the old testiment.

The religion of Buddhism also taught a doctrine of "ahimsa" or non-violence,

Buddha taught no warfare and the teachings of Buddhism even encouraged Ashoka to quit warfare and become a more peaceful person, unlike the "sohei" warrior-monks of Sengoku Japan or some other "Buddhist war".

and you think the former somehow disproves the latter?

You do not have any understanding all of these, gather all religious followers, for example, Buddhists and Christians into one group and accuse Buddhism and Christianity of actually committing the war, when in the end, nothing of their more violent followers were actually caused by Buddhist and Christian doctrines itself.

you might be able to argue for Buddhism (although it has its own problems) but Christianity exposes violence in dozens of places, most religious text do. but now you are arguing the doctrine not the religion.

And, that, you're just going to say "They're religious people anyway! Religion still caused that!"

No I was pointing to specific examples of religiously motivated wars.

. I doubt that you even have an understanding of religious belief, even telling "quasi-religious" beliefs are religious and are to reinforce that "Religion is the cause of majority of wars".

again with the strawman.
you could argue with me instead the imaginary figure you want to project on to me.

[Glamour]

Why should you be mentally ill to be able to believe in things that can't be proven?
Also: What This Depression Survivor Hears When You Call Religion A Mental Illness
5 reasons atheists shouldn’t call religion a mental illness

As I stated when I first joined the discussion many posts ago, I believe they have a disorder because they cannot face evidence without either ignoring it, or replying with more unprovable concepts. They think they have evidence, but when asked to provide it they can't. It's really just a label, theres no medical basis to it. Your all a bunch of kids with ADD to me.

This is absolutely ridiculous, and quite frankly, idiotic. You don't have to be religious to see that. You call on Christians (as though they are the only religious people in existence) to give you evidence, then you say they cannot face YOUR evidence, then you say that Christians think they have evidence even though before that you said they relied on unprovable concepts. What exactly would you consider adequate evidence for the existence of God? Answer me that question.

Not only have you clearly no idea what religion actually is, you are also unable to string together a coherent sentence, and then you blanket call everyone at large immature as well as saying they have a REAL mental illness, which is totally tactless. And then you delete your original post because people are trying to bait you into a confrontation? Read the Bible or any other book about culture and religion before you comment on religion. Don't read a Dawkins textbook and think that the idea that "there is no evidence" should trigger some kind of epiphany in your head where you have the right to walk around being unbelievably arrogant about a concept that has pervaded all cultures and all of human history as if you're talking about it being a simple case of "bring me the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast and then I'll change my national flag and believe". People like you are not helping the discussion because you aren't involved in it. You believe you have all of the answers when it is evident you know nothing, including the fact that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE EITHER WAY, meaning you are as wrong as anybody else about this. Christians strongly believe they're right and you think you know you're right. I know which one is more mentally ill and abrasive to me.

If you don't want to read the Bible, at least read Jute's original post and maybe you will have some clarity, or else just stop trolling.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

Religion has not caused most wars according to what I know.
BUT it is one of the biggest handful of major reasons we declare war.
What makes religion the worst cause of war is that there Is this air about religion where you're "not supposed to criticize it" that most people take seriously. People find it much easier to justify their action when they do that action for a religion reason. Which means a failed idea will continue to persist.
While most of the world now realizes communism was a failed idea after the Cold War ended, the same will not happen with religion. At least, it doesn't happen as fast.

Ideas of god are far more controversial than any political idea. But religion is given a particular form of tolerance and respect it doesn't deserve. All ideas are not above criticism, and religion claims to be above it most, if not, all the time.