The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[CahPhoenix]

Snex, I agree with you for the most part. I don't know if fear is common in every religion but in Christianity it is a major factor. In today's age it is toned down to nothingness, but at the roots that is all it is. If you don't live by these rules then you face eternal ****tation blah blah. In the dark/middle ages everyone was fearful of anything unknown, everything bad of "of ****" or "evil" and they feared those things. A lot of times the Church heads used this to their advantage. Of course, if there is a almighty god that created us then it has every right to put down those rules and enforce them(at least I think so).

To superbus: What or whom knows what bettering ourselves is. Bettering ourselves according to a religion is just following the ideals of the religion and not improving ourselves based on instincts or whatever else. Is bettering ourselves helping others? Or is it' saying screw everyone else and help yourself. Maybe a little of both? You can't really say your bettering yourself if you are still following a guideline set down by someone else.

 

[Superbus]

unfortunately, none of these things require a religion to attain. the one thing common to all religions is fear. if im wrong, then you would be just as happy as a hindu, so why dont you convert? is it because you fear that god will punish you for doing so?

You don't have to go to Princeton to be a renowned physicist, but it sure as **** helps. Religion is a medium to those goals for some people. Secondly, don't assume you know a thing about me. I am a Catholic because that is what I believe. I don't stay Catholic for fear. I think I would know myself better than you. The reason I am Catholic is because of faith. I've tried Catholicism, it worked, so I stay Catholic.

What or whom knows what bettering ourselves is. Bettering ourselves according to a religion is just following the ideals of the religion and not improving ourselves based on instincts or whatever else. Is bettering ourselves helping others? Or is it' saying screw everyone else and help yourself. Maybe a little of both? You can't really say your bettering yourself if you are still following a guideline set down by someone else.

According to your definition, there is no such objective thing as betterment. Betterment is whatever the person thinks it is. So, I say that bettering myself is becoming a more morally (Christian morals) sound, and learning to help others. Christianity is helping me achieve MY goals. And being Christian (I don't want to hear anyone say "but I know a Christian who said this or that... blah blah, I'm a freaking altar boy, I see a lot more than most people) is helping a lot of people like myself achieve THEIR goals. In the end, Christianity is working for a lot of people. Just because you don't believe in its principles doesn't mean you can deny that it has positive effects on quite a few people.

 

[snex]

it isnt the principles we have a problem with, for the most part anyway. it is the fact that it is necessary to believe in invisible men and saviors that died on crosses 2000 years ago. you seem to think that ignoring god and jesus makes one a bad person, incapable of being moral by your standards. this is the problem caused by religion. while you may think it helps people better themselves, it in fact hinders betterment by preventing science from discovering facts about the universe. instead of learning how to cure diseases by using evolutionary theory, we have to deal with the fact that we cant even teach it in high school.

 

[Mediocre]

it is the fact that it is necessary to believe in invisible men and saviors that died on crosses 2000 years ago. you seem to think that ignoring god and jesus makes one a bad person, incapable of being moral by your standards.

As far as I can see, he just said that religion helped him be moral.

*******.

 

[snex]

and, it is also a known fact that those who do not follow his faith in god will be eternally punished in ****, the place for the immoral. so therefore, anybody that does not believe in god is by definition immoral. they are breaking the first commandment, yknow.

 

[CahPhoenix]

Superbus, you contradicted yourself in your first two sentences arguing against my statement. If there is no betterment then betterment cannot be what any person thinks it is. What I'm trying to say is that morals are a set of values that everyone has. Some people's values are much different than others, but does that make them a terrible person for not following a set of values set down by a religious community? Your goals are not really yours if you have been raised in a predominantly Christian society since birth. You know(I am assuming since it is true for most people) nothing about many other religions and what values they hold. Since you have been raised on one set of values you are naturally going to believe those are the right ones. Why do you think there ARE many religions. There is not just one that teaches a universal set of morals. There are many throughout the world, and most religions are centered in one geographical spot. Christianity is the most widespread(due to many factors), but is definitely not the most practiced. I think Confucianism has the most followers even though almost every single one of them resides in Asia - China. If there were one set of morals that were the "right" ones, everyone would practice them, but as it is most people believe in a religion because it was handed down to them by parent/family/race/geographical location. Not by his/her own self awareness.

 

[Superbus]

you seem to think that ignoring god and jesus makes one a bad person, incapable of being moral by your standards. this is the problem caused by religion.

Never said that.

while you may think it helps people better themselves, it in fact hinders betterment by preventing science from discovering facts about the universe.

Now you're just being silly. This isn't the dark ages, science is moving along perfectly fine.

Superbus, you contradicted yourself in your first two sentences arguing against my statement. If there is no betterment then betterment cannot be what any person thinks it is. What I'm trying to say is that morals are a set of values that everyone has.

I'm missing the disagreement here. I said that betterment is in the eye of the beholder, and Catholicism is helping many people achieve their idea of betterment and thus giving them a good feeling about themselves.


More later, I got to go lift then research some Dogma.

 

[McFox]

Originally posted by CahPhoenix
Christianity is the most widespread(due to many factors), but is definitely not the most practiced. I think Confucianism has the most followers even though almost every single one of them resides in Asia - China.

(source)

According to the site, Confucianism is less than 1% of all people. Just wanted to throw that out there.

 

[snex]

I'm missing the disagreement here. I said that betterment is in the eye of the beholder, and Catholicism is helping many people achieve their idea of betterment and thus giving them a good feeling about themselves.

the disagreement lies in the fact that christianity does not help people achieve THEIR idea of betterment, but rather tells them what they should believe betterment is. if all children were raised without religion, and then allowed to choose their own religion at the age of 18 after being exposed to all of them, the figures that mcfox showed us would most likely not be the same.

 

[Superbus]

Wrong. People choose their idea of betterment, and if it coincides with the Church, they stay. Look at McFox, he converted to Atheism.

 

[snex]

wrong. children are raised a certain way, and are for the most part unable to break out of that. just because some of us are able to think for ourselves does not mean everyone is. how can you possibly tell me that being raised in a christian family does not increase the probability of a person being christian?

add to that the fact that one of the major beliefs of most christians throughout history is that they must spread their religion, even at the torture of others, and you get a majority of the world being christian.

 

[Superbus]

Wrong. The Bible says that we are to spread the word and be kindly of others. Something to the effect of "If someone doesn't take you, wash your sandals and leave." (I'll get the exact verse, I'm perusing some stuff right now. Most notably, the Vatican 2 decrees.) Men have warped it into being at the expense of others. And your parents are going to influence you no matter what. In the end, you still have the choice to believe what you want.

 

[CahPhoenix]

Mcfox your right...I totally mixed up Christianity and Confucianism with English and Mandarin Chinese(I think). Sorry about that I didn't really look it up as I wrote everything as fast as possible.

 

[snex]

unfortunately for you superbus, history speaks otherwise.

 

[Mediocre]

Superbus, unfortunately, people are influenced to a great extent by early indoctrination. Although there are some, such as McFox, who through off that indoctrination, they are the exceptions. Most people stay with the religion that they have grown up in.

For instance, my parents raised me in a secular fashion. I'm now an agnostic. Granted, they didn't preach agnosticism to me, but I'm confident that the fashion they raised me in has a great deal to do with my choice to remain agnostic.

 

[Superbus]

unfortunately for you superbus, history speaks otherwise

Men have warped it into being at the expense of others.

Reread my post. Besides, the Christians who actually tortured, killed, etc. people are miniscule compared with the BILLIONS of Christians who walk or have walked the Earth.

Superbus, unfortunately, people are influenced to a great extent by early indoctrination. Although there are some, such as McFox, who through off that indoctrination, they are the exceptions. Most people stay with the religion that they have grown up in.

No ****. I never said that it wasn't a factor, just that in the end people still have the right to choose.

 

[snex]

the right to choose and the ability to choose are two completely different things. a whole lot more people would be atheist if they actually had the ability to choose. i mean, who wouldnt want the same happiness without having to please somebody who may send you to **** for messing up?

 

[Superbus]

i mean, who wouldnt want the same happiness without having to please somebody who may send you to **** for messing up?

Me and many others. Some people genuinely believe in God. Also, no matter what, you still can choose. Everyone can. Your parents help dictate your environment, which in turn shapes you. However, the final decision is still made by the person.

a whole lot more people would be atheist if they actually had the ability to choose.

Prove it.

 

[Mediocre]

No ****.

No **** indeed.

This debate, however, is getting very ****ty. I'm leaving until people start *****ing about something that actually matters.

Good night, and God bless.

 

[snex]

Me and many others. Some people genuinely believe in God.

you see this is where your inability to choose shows. you believe in god, despite the fact that there is absolutely no credible evidence in his favor. you are no different than a child that believes in santa claus. do you think children have the ability to choose to disbelieve in santa claus? of course they dont. they believe whatever respected authority figures (parents) tell them.

now, if nobody ever told their kids about santa claus until they were 18 and able to choose on their own, dont you think a whole lot more children would be santa-atheists? the same applies to god.

 

[Superbus]

you see this is where your inability to choose shows. you believe in god, despite the fact that there is absolutely no credible evidence in his favor. you are no different than a child that believes in santa claus. do you think children have the ability to choose to disbelieve in santa claus? of course they dont. they believe whatever respected authority figures (parents) tell them.

That's because children don't have the mental capacity to choose. You would be hard pressed to find a person at age 18 who believes in Santa Claus. Adults, unlike children, can choose based what they believe in. Children don't have the cognitive development needed to make that choice. Now, I ask you again to prove your statement.

Mediocre, it's sad to see you go. I mean who else is going to mock people?

 

[snex]

the proof lies in the fact that children eventually choose to stop believing in santa claus.

whats the difference between santa claus and god that causes children to continue believing in god?

santa does not care if you dont believe in him. god will send you to **** if you dont. find me a religion that doesnt punish you for not believing in it, and ill show you a bunch of atheists.

 

[Superbus]

santa does not care if you dont believe in him. god will send you to **** if you dont.

Find me proof that that is why people stay Christian.

 

[Mediocre]

Mediocre, it's sad to see you go. I mean who else is going to mock people?

I'm back.

the proof lies in the fact that children eventually choose to stop believing in santa claus.

whats the difference between santa claus and god that causes children to continue believing in god?

Most people are told, by their parents, that Santa Claus isn't real. Most people don't go to church every sunday to praise Santa Claus.

Wow! Logic is a hoot! You really should get in on this snex!

 

[snex]

actually children realize on their own that santa claus isnt real.

Find me proof that that is why people stay Christian.

i already did. the only difference between santa and god is fear. therefore, since people still believe in god but not santa, fear must be the cause.

 

[Superbus]

Most people are told, by their parents, that Santa Claus isn't real.

Man you're parents are cruel. My parents never told me or my brother. If no one told you, by the time you are 18 you still wouldn't believe.

I'm glad to see you are back Mediocre, I thought the fact that I'm not a crazy zealot had turned you away...

i already did. the only difference between santa and god is fear. therefore, since people still believe in god but not santa, fear must be the cause.

Oh the amazing deductive reasoning statement. Well how can I debate that, your conclusion is obviously infallible...

Now, to state that the ONLY difference betwenn God and Santa is fear is absurd. How about, one is considered to be the creator of the universe and the other brings presents down your chimney? Or how about one is thought to be omnipotent, and the other's power consists of riding flying reindeer and getting down chimneys? Seriously, a better statement would be that the ONLY thing Santa and God have in common is that they are beings that's existence is questionable.

 

[snex]

How about, one is considered to be the creator of the universe and the other brings presents down your chimney? Or how about one is thought to be omnipotent, and the other's power consists of riding flying reindeer and getting down chimneys?

except that neither of these would inspire belief. look at the big bang. it created the universe and people like caliburchamp dont believe in it. or if you want an inoffensive example, i could say that odin created the universe from the skull of the slain frost giant, ymir, but thats no reason to believe it right? creation of the universe is not cause for belief.

as for omnipotence, this has already been proven to be a logical impossiblility, so claiming that a being is omnipotent is just a reason to NOT believe in it.

the only things that can inspire belief are proof and fear (and the inability to think for oneself, but we are assuming that the argument pertains to able-thinking adults).

 

[Superbus]

except that neither of these would inspire belief

Myself and a lot of others find an omnipotent God more believable than a guy who brings presents down your chimney when you are sleeping.

or if you want an inoffensive example, i could say that odin created the universe from the skull of the slain frost giant, ymir, but thats no reason to believe it right? creation of the universe is not cause for belief.

Yes, but Genesis and the big bang coincide enough to give myself and others a reason to believe in it.

as for omnipotence, this has already been proven to be a logical impossiblility, so claiming that a being is omnipotent is just a reason to NOT believe in it.

God can defy the rules of logic, He made them.

the only things that can inspire belief are proof and fear (and the inability to think for oneself, but we are assuming that the argument pertains to able-thinking adults).

Hope.

 

[snex]

Myself and a lot of others find an omnipotent God more believable than a guy who brings presents down your chimney when you are sleeping.

this is just a personal preference and a lack of understanding of logic. personally id rather have presents every year than the existence of a being that can destroy me on a whim.

Yes, but Genesis and the big bang coincide enough to give myself and others a reason to believe in it.

genisis does NOT coincide with the entire creation up to the appearance of humans. please see the EvC thread where no christian has dared reply in over a week.

God can defy the rules of logic, He made them.

this is just a cop-out statement. nothing can defy logic. if god changed just ONE rule of logic, this would lead to proof that he himself does not exist (using the new rules he created). logic is not fallible, it is not breakable. if you studied it youd know this.

Hope.

hope of what? that by obeying gods rules you will be given eternal salvation? this is just your fear expressing itself in a palatable form. you fear ****, so you obey god in the hopes that he wont punish you.

 

[Superbus]

this is just a personal preference and a lack of understanding of logic.

No I understand logic just fine thank you. You don't understand that your "logic" produces no definite conclusions. It is more subjective than you think. Case in point, your Santa Claus analogy. There are plenty of other factors that go along with it that you discounted, as I previously mentioned.

genisis does NOT coincide with the entire creation up to the appearance of humans. please see the EvC thread where no christian has dared reply in over a week.

It coincides enough for a non-zealot to agree with.

this is just a cop-out statement. nothing can defy logic. if god changed just ONE rule of logic, this would lead to proof that he himself does not exist (using the new rules he created). logic is not fallible, it is not breakable. if you studied it youd know this.

Don't you dare patronize me. Don't get mad because I present arguments other than "you're going to **** atheist!!" Also, there is no need to study logic to know that an all powerful being can break it. Your problem is that if you, snex, cannot comprehend it, then you are too arrogant to admit it. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, or is paradoxical to you, doesn't mean that an ALL POWERFUL being couldn't do it.

hope of what? that by obeying gods rules you will be given eternal salvation? this is just your fear expressing itself in a palatable form. you fear ****, so you obey god in the hopes that he wont punish you.

Hope is something that apparently you cannot fathom. This means one of two things, or a mix of both. Either A) you are jaded, or B) your life is already satisfying. There are a lot of people in this world who truly have nothing. My friend lives well below the poverty line. He lost his mom and dad at an early age, and he lives with his grandparents. Do you know where he gets his strength to live everyday? God. He is deeply religious. If you ever dropped the cynicism, you would take a look around and find that not all Christians are Christian because of fear of ****.

 

[snex]

No I understand logic just fine thank you. You don't understand that your "logic" produces no definite conclusions. It is more subjective than you think.

please explain how "p & ~p" is subjective. then explain how god can break that law without disproving his own existence.

It coincides enough for a non-zealot to agree with.

fair enough, but then so does the norse myth.

Also, there is no need to study logic to know that an all powerful being can break it. Your problem is that if you, snex, cannot comprehend it, then you are too arrogant to admit it. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, or is paradoxical to you, doesn't mean that an ALL POWERFUL being couldn't do it.

more proof that you just dont understand logic. it has nothing to do with making sense to ME, or being paradoxical to ME. it is nonsensical and paradoxical in NATURE. i am not even part of the equation. the fact that omnipotence is a paradox does not even require my existence. to bring up the age old question, can an all-powerful being create a boulder so heavy that even he could not lift it? this question cannot be answered not because i am a human, but because it is a logical paradox in REALITY.

Do you know where he gets his strength to live everyday? God. He is deeply religious. If you ever dropped the cynicism, you would take a look around and find that not all Christians are Christian because of fear of ****.

he would probably be much happier as a buddhist, because buddhism teaches the freedom from want of material things. yet he remains christian. why is that? maybe because he thinks god will be pissed if he becomes a buddhist?

 

[Mediocre]

he would probably be much happier as a buddhist, because buddhism teaches the freedom from want of material things. yet he remains christian. why is that? maybe because he thinks god will be pissed if he becomes a buddhist?

Or perhaps it is because he has been indoctrinated into Christainity from an early age.

it is nonsensical and paradoxical in NATURE... yata, yata, yata... this question cannot be answered not because i am a human, but because it is a logical paradox in REALITY.

The obvious answer to this question would be that God can break the laws of both nature and reality, as well as logic, because he created all of them.

I, personally, think that explanation is BS, but I allow others to believe whatever the **** they want to.

 

[snex]

Or perhaps it is because he has been indoctrinated into Christainity from an early age.

which would have told him that god would be pissed if he were to not believe in it.

The obvious answer to this question would be that God can break the laws of both nature and reality, as well as logic, because he created all of them.

this is always the christian's last defense. once they are back up against the wall with no logical ground to stand on they proudly proclaim that god is not bound by logic. if they could only get passed their silly fear of **** they would be able to break out of this nonsense and realize that fear really is the only thing fueling their belief.

 

[Mediocre]

You know snex, I've been to mass. It's not so bad, and the preachers don't talk hellfire to you. Mostly they talk about the love and compassion of God.

It's all a bunch of bull****, of course, but then again so is your claim that Christians are Christian because of fear.

Shoo fly, don't bother me.

 

[snex]

i used to be catholic mediocre, and i know what mass is like. just because they dont stand up there preaching hellfire does not mean its not at the very core of the religion. seriously, why do you think that things like buddhism and norse mythology have so few followers? are they inferior to christianity in any way? of course the christians will give a resounding yes, but a buddhist or a midgardian will tell you no.

the only real difference is the fear factor involved. the more you get your patrons to fear seeking other beliefs, the more patrons you will have. just ask any christian why he doesnt investigate other religions to see which one is truly right for him. (yes im aware that some do this, but it is an extreme minority so dont bother pointing it out).

 

[Superbus]

please explain how "p & ~p" is subjective. then explain how god can break that law without disproving his own existence.

I was refering more to your analogies. Besides, your statements are completely disregarded because you are dealing with a God that is considered omnipotent, as in can do anything.

more proof that you just dont understand logic. it has nothing to do with making sense to ME, or being paradoxical to ME. it is nonsensical and paradoxical in NATURE. i am not even part of the equation. the fact that omnipotence is a paradox does not even require my existence. to bring up the age old question, can an all-powerful being create a boulder so heavy that even he could not lift it? this question cannot be answered not because i am a human, but because it is a logical paradox in REALITY.

God can make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it, then lift it. Seems paradoxical to us humans, but not to him.

he would probably be much happier as a buddhist, because buddhism teaches the freedom from want of material things. yet he remains christian. why is that? maybe because he thinks god will be pissed if he becomes a buddhist?

This is just a stubborn, insensitive statement. He is Christian because it gives him hope and strength to live every day, nothing to do with fear. End of story.

this is always the christian's last defense.

Nope, its my first one. I like to establish this fact early.

are they inferior to christianity in any way? of course the christians will give a resounding yes,

Obviously someone isn't familiar with Vatican II doctrine. But of course, a vague knowledge of the tenets of Christianity is enough to debase it...


HERE IS THE VATICAN ITSELF EXTENDING A FRIENDLY HAND TO MOST NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

Note that is from the official Vatican site.

just ask any christian why he doesnt investigate other religions to see which one is truly right for him

Ever heard the axiom, "if it is not broke, don't fix it?" Seriously, most Christians find that it works so they stay. Why mess with a good thing?

 

[snex]

I was refering more to your analogies. Besides, your statements are completely disregarded because you are dealing with a God that is considered omnipotent, as in can do anything.

God can make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it, then lift it. Seems paradoxical to us humans, but not to him.

more nonsensical cop-outs. read the rules of the debate hall. either debate or dont post. paradoxes are not possible to man, to god, and to invisible pink unicorn alike. if god could make a boulder so heavy that he cannot lift it, and then lift it, then it was not so heavy that he could not lift it in the first place. its amazing how easily logic escapes you.

This is just a stubborn, insensitive statement. He is Christian because it gives him hope and strength to live every day, nothing to do with fear. End of story.

prove it. introduce him to buddhism, and convince him that he wont go to **** for abandoning god. otherwise you have no grounds to argue. i, however, do. just ask anybody who has taken that advice.

Obviously someone isn't familiar with Vatican II doctrine. But of course, a vague knowledge of the tenets of Christianity is enough to debase it...

the vatican doctrine is strictly catholic, not necessarily christian. there are still plenty of protestants out there (who represent a majority of christians btw) that will condemn you to **** for being a buddhist.

Ever heard the axiom, "if it is not broke, don't fix it?" Seriously, most Christians find that it works so they stay. Why mess with a good thing?

gee if you agree with this attitude, why arent you living on a farm with the amish? seriously, stop using your computer which uses the internet to try to convince people in an atheist topic (where nobody invited you) to follow your illogical ways. life wasnt broke in jesus' time, so please feel free to live just like it.

 

[Superbus]

more nonsensical cop-outs. read the rules of the debate hall. either debate or dont post. paradoxes are not possible to man, to god, and to invisible pink unicorn alike.

I am debating, and we disagree. I say paradoxes are possible to an all powerful God because he is all powerful, and you say that they are not.

prove it. introduce him to buddhism, and convince him that he wont go to **** for abandoning god. otherwise you have no grounds to argue. i, however, do. just ask anybody who has taken that advice.

Just ask someone, wonderful proof. I'm sure he knows about Buddhism (he is smart) and many other religions, but he elects to be Christian. The fact of the matter is that he is not Christianity out of fear. Despite what you WANT to believe, that is not the main reason people are Christian, although I cannot deny that some people prbably are.

the vatican doctrine is strictly catholic, not necessarily christian. there are still plenty of protestants out there (who represent a majority of christians btw) that will condemn you to **** for being a buddhist.

I'm Catholic and I'm arguing mainly for my religion, so I don't care what Protestants think. I should have put Catholicism instead of Christianity in my statement.

gee if you agree with this attitude, why arent you living on a farm with the amish?

Because I wasn't raised Amish. Why don't the Amish move off the farm?

life wasnt broke in jesus' time, so please feel free to live just like it.

It seems broke to me, because I would be unhappy. My life right now though however, is fine, so I will continue to live it. The point is, if you are already happy and satisfied, then why change it? The obvious rebuttle is "then why don't you sit on your butt and not earn any money?" The answer to this question is, most people are not fully satisfied with their lives, so they strive for more. Either that, or striving provides happiness and a sense of accomplishment (self-actualization). So don't confuse working toward a better life with staying with a religion that works.

 

[snex]

I am debating, and we disagree. I say paradoxes are possible to an all powerful God because he is all powerful, and you say that they are not.

your entire premise for "debate" is that paradoxes are possible. debates use logic. if your argument is that logic is not solid, you have nothing to debate upon.

I'm sure he knows about Buddhism (he is smart) and many other religions, but he elects to be Christian. The fact of the matter is that he is not Christianity out of fear.

like i said, prove it.

It seems broke to me, because I would be unhappy. My life right now though however, is fine, so I will continue to live it. The point is, if you are already happy and satisfied, then why change it? The obvious rebuttle is "then why don't you sit on your butt and not earn any money?" The answer to this question is, most people are not fully satisfied with their lives, so they strive for more. Either that, or striving provides happiness and a sense of accomplishment (self-actualization). So don't confuse working toward a better life with staying with a religion that works.

maybe it doesnt work. maybe youre just afraid to try something else that may in fact give you a better life. somebody who has spent their entire life as a christian may THINK that he has the perfect religion, but how does he really know? he will never know, because christianity scares him into not trying anything else.

 

[Superbus]

your entire premise for "debate" is that paradoxes are possible. debates use logic. if your argument is that logic is not solid, you have nothing to debate upon.

My premise is that logic does not apply to the Almighty, so I guess this is just one topic that we can't "debate" on.

maybe it doesnt work. maybe youre just afraid to try something else that may in fact give you a better life. somebody who has spent their entire life as a christian may THINK that he has the perfect religion, but how does he really know? he will never know, because christianity scares him into not trying anything else.

Well, let examine my life... yup it's fine. So why would I change it? If people think they have the perfect religion, then WHY change it? If it is working, and they are content, then they have no reason to change.

like i said, prove it.

Would you like me to read his mind? All I know is that he said the he is Christian because of it gives him strength and that he would not consider changing. Your fear argument is just starting to sound ridiculous. Either A) provide evidence, not ridiculous "logical" statements, or B) drop it. The fact is, that you keep making statements, with no actual cases to back it up.