[Filligree]

> There's one way to win back believers and it's to eliminate in-group/out-group dynamics and replace it with material acts of benevolence - akin to large scale public works projects to eliminate suffering.

That would make me think more of the organisations in question, but I don’t understand why it would affect belief. It has no bearing on the correctness of the claims they make.

[jqpabc123]

It has no bearing on the correctness of the claims they make.

It has bearing on the veracity of those making the claims.

Why *believe* claims from those whose actions prove they don't really believe it themselves? If they did truly *believe*, they would certainly be acting much differently.

"Do as I say, not as a I do" is not a convincing argument to most rational people.

[spwa4]

Almost all believers I have ever known were believers for social reasons, for belonging to a group. I've yet to meet the first one (that wasn't 6 years old) that had actual belief.

Christianity is falling apart because all groups are falling apart in traditional Christian countries, including other religions, including everything from Tennis clubs to Latin study groups.

[kelseyfrog]

It's difficult to imagine a religion that would be approve of having the ability to alleviate suffering and choose not to. It would seem to run contrary to the love and altruistic behavior that religions tend to profess as part of their belief system. Perhaps I'm mistaken that religions don't incorporate this as part of their belief systems?