To argue the validity of religion is in no way productive. In fact, it just makes people cross. I say this because apparently you haven’t learned this in any religion argument you have ever had. (talking to whoever this applies to). Its not called a belief for nothing. Proving it true or wrong is no method to improving the quality of lives.

The argument is which philosophy is healthier, which promotes better well-being. Surely, a philosophy grounded in observations, formed to the curve of modern life, and created for the promotion of well-being is healthier.

A philosophy based on thousands of years of myths, ancient observations, paranoia, the promise of eternal punishment/salvation, and created for the promotion of a made-up quality, is a poor way to promote well-being.

Although i must say there are certain individuals who, for whatever depressing reason, are quite inept at forming principles promoting well being. You know a lot of them. Their case is the one that gets sucked into radicalism, alcoholism, trashism, and/or general depression.

In promoting well-being, it seems these individuals would be better off being taught principles of well-being. Such principles should, probably, be based on observations and an individual striving for well-being.

He believes he was born a christian, as if the environment in which he was raised had nothing to do with his beliefs. So in his retarded and immature worldview we are being racist.

By the way, your post there didn’t help your side of the argument much. Just sayin’.

sure, makes perfect sense.

yes, many atheists where christians. yes many left there beliefs because of personal tragedy or pain.

so?

this detracts in no way from the fact that the claims of christianity are laughably wrong, that the moral precepts are flawed or in practice horrible, and that the god claim is so unlikely as to be a joke. thats simply the way things are. yes, human beings some times need to have false beliefs knocked out of them. yes, some times it requires something extreme to let go of the comfort blanket of religion. that doesn’t make the comfort blanket REAL. it’s the rare few Christian who loses there faith through purely logical reasoning. after all, only flawed reasoning could get you INTO religion (usually it is simply brain washing and emotional appeals), so why would you assume that only reasoning could get you out of it?

ie, those who believe in some form of god, some form of jesus christ, and some form of revealed truth in the bible.

that is a christian.

the details beyond that can determine which denomination you ostensibly belong to. though variations will exist in particular interpretation and beliefs upon minutia.

to THEN alter the definition in order to make a point, instead of using the evidence to fit your point. is what we call moving the goal post. it’s simply a particular form of the goal post moving fallacy, usually as it applies to implied and explicit uses of alternate definitions.

are you a true christian?

very well.

drink poison.
handle snakes.
drive out demons.

Mark 16:9-20

sure, the SECULAR scientific evidence indicates this is a latter addition and could argue it’s not true because of this, but then this opens up a worse can of worms. how could god let such a _fundamental component_ of how to know who is a saved christan be perverted this way?