i like your opinion, but there is one huge problem, if God did not make sin, how could he be omnipotent? God had to have created sin! Just like God made diseases, bacteria, and other parasites. God made both the good of this world, and after man sinned, he created the bad as well. -wareagle372

 I don't think you get it. Sin is not created. Sin is a rebelion against God. It is not something that is created. It is a revolt against God. Secondly, Sin did not come from man, nor did God make sin and create the bad. Sin came from Satan as a result of his rebellion against God.

If you say that the choice to rebel against God is Sin, then we are at two different definitions. The Choice to rebel against God is Free Will, the actual rebellion itself is sin and is not of God but is against God. Saying that God "made" Sin is simply saying that he started a Revolution against himself, but it is not saying that he "Created" Revolution. I hope you understand what i mean. 

A God who is not Omnipotent is not God at all, niether is a God who has revolted against itself. Thus you are left with an Idol, a great and mighty being who created the Universe and gave life to creatures but yet fights itself. As great as the Idol is, it is not God.

For that, I would like to recommend this book called  "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens.

What a read. -your mother

So you would counter-recommend my book, which is a book about what God is for those who wish to argue for or against him, with a book that tries to fight against not only Religion, but human faith and the morality of Christianity, Muslim, Judaism and other Mono/Polythiestic Religions? I don't know about your book, but my book is good for all. It tries to explain what the Christian God is before any arguements are made, while you book attacks not the qualities or concepts of God, but the actions and effects of Humans. I don't understand your logic. 

Let me change your quote so that I can try and understand your argument, let me know if I have changed it too much, or have twisted your beliefs.

"I think it comes down to this, I believe in one of the gods people commonly believe in.

The reason for this is because I believe where is the harm in believing in my one god? If I don't believe in my god do I feel better about myself? Do I think I am above other people? No.

I believe in my one god, because it is way of giving me hope and bettering myself, it also gives me strength. If there is no harm in believing I don't see the problem. If the one god I happen to believe in exists, I believed in him and lived by his laws.

If it's not hurting you what's the problem, this discussion is non-terminating."

Well, I'll skip past some of the obvious, discussion ending arguments, and jump right to this one,

"The fact that a religious man is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

Then I'll say:

If your belief in religion is truly not harming me, then I apologize, but I think it's fair to say religion does more harm than good, and thus it is fair to say that at least 50% of religion is doing more bad than good. That means I could concievably flip a coin to decide if a particular religion is good or bad. I'm afraid the odds just spoil me, and if your beliefs truly do no harm - I apologize again.

i'm afraid i have to agree with you on the last part. People will take religion for their personal gains. We saw this in the Catholic church in the medievil times. They told people if they didn't pay money, they would burn in hell. Many religions today are made for personal gains like scientology. No offense, if you believe that crap, you need to get a REEEAAALLL good shrink

YES! Thank you!