No, if it were about our society, it would have to explicitly state Religion in heavily Western influenced cultures. or something to that extent. Im pretty sure the argument starter wanted the answers to be all encompassing. since that allows for more subject matter to be discussed.

Yes, the majority of the religious population of the world IS religious.

Thanks for being civil and not being a douscher when someone corrected you! ;D

The statement is that Religion leads to immoral behavior. Now that's open to so many damned interpretations its ridiculous. Ill specify what i think is fair. Religion = Organized doctrine that attempts to reach something which empirical data has not been able to. Immoral = Something that is the opposite of moral.

Morality is subjective, like how it is seen as normal to circumcise men in America, but we see it as disgusting that women in Ethiopia and other countries are being circumcised.

Were all a Western audience for the most part, and we all use Christianity as a basic grounds for argument, for and against our claims. People target Christianity just as much as Christians attempt to use argue its legitimacy.

Most religious books are so large, encompassing, and vague, that there are many interpretations that can be drawn. Christianity for example states that eating food from the sea that has no scales or fins is unclean, as is laying with another person who is the same sex as you. Unclean gets interpreted to mean sinful, then other scripture is interpreted to include the stoning of homosexuals.

The original claim is correct either way, and whoever posted this obviously did not want a specific conclusion. Of course religion leads to immoral behavior, but it also leads to moral behavior as well...so it is unfair to force people to decide.

"You can justify any action with religion", if the action is not justified, then you change the religion around. The Catholic Church was extremely good at that.

"Religious people have no inner strength." Arguable, but not strongly. Everyone has some degree of "inner strength". But I think that religious people have LESS inner strength than people who do not believe in organized religious doctrine.

God could be non-benevolent, and also the root of all evil as well? Actually, i think it would be necessary for God to be the root of everything; good, evil, apples, your underwear, etc.

Ignorance is not allowable here.

First let me tell you something. The scrolls that he received were written in something called "Demotic Script\". NOT Egyptian Hieroglyphs. This was almost entirely deciphered in 1814 by Briton Thomas Young. He published his findings, and they would be easily acquired by someone with as much money behind him as Joseph Smith.

Demotic was coined in 1822, when the entire alphabet of the language was deciphered.

http://www.brighthub.com/education/languages/articles/29354.aspx

Jean-François Champollion completed deciphering almost all of the language on the Rosetta Stone. He died in 1835.

Let me also state that the institute presenting the ideas of this Mormon scripture is extremely biased. They firstly do not explain that the language used to write on the papyrus scrolls was Demotic, and not Egyptian Hieroglyphics. The small fragments that had Egyptian Hieroglyphics were not deciphered by Joseph Smith.

He lied, and i suppose the video and scientific research support this.

Also, the Institute for Religious Research used to be known as Gospel Truths Ministries. They produced Christian apologetic material most of the time.

Which is why they really attempted to discredit Mormonism and to credit Christianity with truth.

I hate to use wiki material, but i double checked it and i suggest you do too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demotic_(Egyptian)

Compare the symbols with these

http://www.irr.org/mit/boa-papyrus-js11.html

The video was nice, and i watched the whole thing.

Also, read this, it explains Mormonism

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Mormon

and watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8hLbqdrQug

That God would have to be Deistic God?

I mean, and people could just plain argue that there God is infallible and the human mind can not conceive of anything regarding to God. That reason is a fruitless attempt. But where is the enjoyment in life in that? If you can not have knowledge of anything for sure, and can only trust faith and belief?

Seems very unbecoming of anyone who thinks the way i do.

But, back to hell...Hell is one of 3 things.

1. Non-Existent

2. Created by a non-benevolent God

3. Hell, Michigan

God i hope so. One can only hope...and post here to make people come to the dark side. I.E. Burn in hell foreverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandever. And ever.

Which is why Christians make up an estimated third of the world's population? Most of which live in Europe and North America, the two greatest industrialized regions in the world (debatable with Russia, China, Japan, S. Korea in Asia). It seems to be that Christians would have much more of a voice where only 16% of the world is non-religious. And even less than that is atheist.

....How can God not have a choice? (Assuming he is real )How can you even make a statement like that. That is one of the single most stupidest statements I have ever come across. God is fucking omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. He is perfect by definition. He is not bound by any restrictions by the simple fact that God is ABSOLUTE.

God has a choice. If he does not, then the God your speaking about is not God, or there is no God.

A benevolent God would be definition not force his most dear creations to suffer eternally, and to argue in favor of such a point is a fruitless endeavor.