Well-played, good sir. :clap:

You're deliberately ignoring my point so I'll cut right to the chase. You are claiming your beliefs on the basis of faith, just faith. You have no logical or scientific ground to stand on and I could make similar claims based on faith and there's no way to prove them to be true (hence the absurd question I posed to you that you ignored.) Despite this you came in here and started arrogantly attacking atheists/agnostics and stating they were immoral in comparison to Christians and then you treated the non-belief like some romantic teenage movement of nihilistic pseudo-intellectuals. This is fundamentally wrong seeing as scientific skepticism is a super idea to modern Catholicism.

Interesting you say this now seeing as earlier you insinuated that atheists committed more crimes than Christians.

It is true that my religious beliefs are based entirely on faith and it really isn't up for discussion obviously, because this conversation isn't really based on fact for me. I never attacked Atheists/Agnostics, I defended Christianity. All I said was that Christianity can be a very good thing in life and it can change the way you think and act in life, hence why people become born agains. As for the "nihilistic pseudo-intellectuals", that wasn't all-encompassing (in fact, it didn't include you as I pointed out earlier in the thread). When I said what I did, I was referring to people who don't bother to research or look for themselves but who prefer to be part of the modern society that no longer embraces Christianity the way it used to.
And I stand behind what I said. That doesn't make Atheists/Agnostics any lesser of people, they just don't have any role model of sorts to base their morals off of. They don't have the motivation to do good that Christians have.

Jesus doesn't like it when you lie. You didn't come in here and defend Christianity and talk about your faith being a personal choice. Read your posts, want me to quote them for you? You sarcastically mocked atheists, demanded they prove something you yourself said was unprovable and then avoided any discussion by citing "faith" as your sole reason for believing. Do not continue this discussion by pretending you were being anything other than arrogant, condescending and self-righteous.

Then it's a stupid statement to stand behind. Christians did not invent morality and they have no claim to it - nor do they have claim to many of the great civil rights advancements of recent times. In fact by using faith as your justification you're only condoning the acts of extremists (e.g. 9/11 and suicide bombing.)

There's also another logical fallacy I see in your post. You're essentially saying that the believer has reason to be moral because of his fear of eternal punishment by that logic, the moral nonbeliever (and there is such a thing as a moral nonbeliever) is moral for no reason other than for the sake of being moral. Which do you consider to be the more noble moralist? For me it's the latter.

As far as nonbelievers committing more crimes (aside from you having provide no evidence other than personal experience) I highly doubt they do it because of their critical thinking and skeptical inquiry. Let's take an example near and dear to your heart (as a Catholic) if you see a man molest a child why do you think he did it? Because he was an atheist (or more likely a Priest) or because of lust? There's no logical connection between the former and the act, however there is a logical connection between lust and the act.

I stand firmly against this. I don't need a role model to base my morals off of, because I have my own sense of right and wrong, and just because I don't believe in God doesn't make it any more or less "moral" on those terms. I don't need God to give me motivation to do good, I give myself motivation to do good because I believe it is right.

I really don't see how you can validate that statement. Just because someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean they don't have a will to do good, and to claim otherwise I think is ridiculous.

Please explain, on what basis to you think non-believers have no motivation to do good simply because they don't believe in your religion?

The idea that a nonbeliever is less moral than a believer is of course complete bullshit. Warren Buffett, who's possibly the greatest philanthropist of our time, has donated more to charity than Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson have ever even considered giving.

Right, so by your reasoning, atheists have no moral compass, and have no desire to do good.

Well, not only is that comment incredibly offensive, it's extremely ignorant. Since I'm conveniently an atheist, lets use me as an example shall we? I started volunteering at a homeless shelter at the age of 15, went to cambodia for 2 months (on my dime) to volunteer for a non-profit organization and teach english at an orphanage at 20, at 21 I worked at that same homeless shelter at home when I could have made more money at a boring office job, and now at 22 I just came back from an internship in Cameroon working for a non-government organization when I could have stayed in Calgary working for a newspaper. Now I'm working to set up a job (be it paid, or simply for room and board) in india working for an ngo.

My motivation to work in the non-profit sector most certainly does not come from religion. It sure as hell doesn't come from any desire for financial gain, and it's disgusting that you think that an atheist can have no capacity to desire to do good in the world. Long and short of it, you embody every quality of the arrogant ******* Christian that I really despise.

To expand on this secular morality vs. christian morality argument; humanistic movements have been motivated by societal needs as opposed to religious needs throughout history. Movements towards civil rights and voting came about through societal pressure and acceptance; not because the Bible said so. It's really only after the fact that people go through the Bible and point out a verse and go "see! the bible is anti-racism and pro-feminism" but by the same token the bible can be interpreted to say just the opposite (which is why I wouldn't consider it the complete book of morals. You can justify anything through it.)

My reply to the initial question of this thread would probably go something like this:

Christianity, on the personal level, is only as real as you want it be. If you had never heard of Christianity and discovered The Bible as an adult, you probably wouldn't be basing your life-system off of it. It's a big reason why adults who grew up in religious-tolerant homes, but still remained Christian as a matter of tradition, create their own version of Christianity. However, for some it has enough of that "faith-healing" factor to trigger the initial human tenacity in us all that helps people to kick drug addictions and recover from serious illnesses.

On a family level, it acts quite strongly as an invisible nanny if the parents decide to enforce the religion on their childrens' minds. It convinces the kids that being bad never goes unnoticed. "If the parents never know about it, God surely did, and you better believe that you'll answer for what you did eventually." It's this kind of mental parasitism that promotes the notion that being different (i.e. gay, of a different faith or faithless) is wrong - and in fanatical circumstances - punishable by death. Therefore, the kids' minds will keep themselves in check.

On a national level, you might get something similar to what we have going on today between the US and the Middle East. That old notion of the different peoples of the world being wrong and "evil" triggers mass hysteria and hate-mongering. "And if we destroy the world while we're at it? That's Okay, because our God will understand that it was what we had to do to get rid of all the heathens. And then we can all go live with Jesus in fluffy clouds." Although technically the United States is not a Christian nation, it's far from completely secular (i.e. national holidays, Manifest Destiny). And there are plenty of mentally feeble dupes to convince to go to strange places, learn strange, new customs, and meet strange, new people only to kill them. All because their reverend, pastor, priest, father, parishioner, president, general, TV said it was the right thing to do.

So depending on what level we refer to it, Christianity is real in a completely harmless way, and on another level it could wield the power to destroy most of the life on the planet.

I think the question is, "Should we allow it to exist as a harmless idea when it has genocidal potential?"

What you depict (I'm assuming your description of its role in the family is the "harmless idea" side of Christianity) is mental child abuse.