Which brings us to point B) Religious practice is a burdon.

Using that logic, not exposing anyone to religious practice would be the best course of action. Simply teaching them to be good to others should be enough.

What?  I am talking about praying.  You said praying "it gives you nothing but self pleasure; and illusion God is extra close to you."  That is an opinion that you came to based on your last thread.  That statement has nothing to do with where you were born.

All the same, it would still be an opinion, unless you are confused about opinion and fact.  Your logic behind your opinion still doesn't make it fact, unless you can without a doubt prove it.  Which you can't.

In what sense is it a burden? Because it encourages you not to be a self-centered hedonist? Study after study has shown that religious people tend to be happier and healthier than non-religious people, just as married people tend to be happier and healthier than the unmarried. Of course, organized religion is quite a different matter, and being part of a bad church is just like being part of a bad marriage in that you're better off without it. But there are clear physical and mental health benefits to not living a self-centered life, and religion can be one way to achieve this whether or not there is a god.

Then don't pretend they aren't opinion.  I think discussion and question are great as long as they dont come off pretentious.    I never attacked everything you say, in matter of fact, I tried to think about it and give a response. 

That's not how it works. When you talk to someone and say "Coke clearly taste better than Pepsi" it wouldn't make sense to end that sentence with ", in my opinion". The fact that it's an opinion is obvious, and politicians use this discussing method as well.

My only problem was you stating in a fact like manner that prayer was selfish and an illusion when there is no way to prove that.  I can easily say I have prayed and heard God and he told me what to do and it worked.  It was also in a case to help another person.  There done, I defunked your statement.  Good luck proving mine never happened.

Russel's teapot. It is not up to me to prove that.

All I am saying is when entereing sensitive subject matter, this is a good time to use the "I think" before statements.  I understand that is a bad form for an argument but it goes a long way for open discussion for matters like this.

By saying "I think" all thetime I wouldn't sound very convincing at all. Like I said, that's not how it works.

I am well aware of those who are happy because of their belief (just like my family), and I don't mind that at all. But it may still be a burden based on my explanation in the OP. And even though a religious person may be happy, that doesn't rule out the possibility that they may make others unhappy (such as homosexuals who want to get married, or anyone who doesn't want to be circumcised).

But the evidence is overwhelming that it is not generally a burden and, in fact, carries tangible benefits. As for your example in the OP, just because you personally have a negative view of evangelism doesn't mean that evangelical people share your view and think of it as a burden.

And yes, of course it's bad to try and force your beliefs on other people, but that is the case whether those beliefs are religious or secular.

I wasn't talking about it as a physical burden though, but more of a burden in theory. The Bible is telling people to spread God's word, even though most people probably don't go to Asia to make the polulation over there Christian. People simply skip their duty/burden, therefore it's not a burden for them.

1.   You know exaclty what your doing when you create threads like this.  There is nothing wrong handeling this with a little class.  You are not writing a dissertation.  You are tring to have an open discussion with people of very different beleifs.   If someon ask me which soda is better and I know one works at Coke and works very hard to get the taste right.  If i want to be honest, I will say Pepsi taste better to me.  It's just nicer, better manners.   IMO this is one of the few times that it just makes sense.  I hate it when people do the IMO opening when they try to argue for or against most things, but its so sensitive that you have to be carful.  You can get people riled up - points to me.

2.  Thats exactly it!!!  You made a silly claim and your argument was no one proved me wrong, so I must be right.  i was just showing you how silly that is.

3.  If you are going to write in absolute, then you should't be suprised I challenged it, stating the obvious truth that is a conclusion drawn on the fact that God doesn't exist.  You didn't counter the point with, no this is how that statement is still true if God does exist.  If you don't want to talk about another subject manner in this thread, don't include it in your concluding argument.

4.  I don't want to derail your thread, since we are not on subject matter, i will not respond to your next post.  (maybe in PM if I really feel the need)