The difference between Christianity and the other is our savior is a living savior.

Buhda = Dead

Muhamed = Dead

Joseph Smith = Dead

Krishna = Dead

Confusus = Dead

Jesus = Arisen

That there shows a difference, also if you study old testiment prophecy you will notice that not one of them has been wrong, many of them have already been fulfilled, some have not yet, but still will be.

For example the OT predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, The future empires that came and went (Nebecanezzer's dream), The Birthplace of jesus, He rejection amonst the Jews, his death, the means of his death, the Rebirth of Israel, and many many other things, that might help give you some faith if you studied Bible prophecy, the accuracy is amazing, actually supernatural.

You spelled Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, and Nebuchadnezzar wrong.  And "amongst," but I hope that's a typo.

Confucius was a philosopher, not a savior.  Muhammad and Joseph Smith were prophets who founded new faiths after divine revelation, but aren't supernatural themselves.  In Buddhism, eternal life is not even the goal, so that comparison doesn't work.  The goal in Buddhism is to escape the cycle of life, which is a cycle of reincarnation and suffering.  And even then, calling Buddha "dead" is pretty tricky to do.  Krishna is a G-d, so I don't see how you're calling him dead.  It is believed that he doesn't age or deteriorate in any way.  Depending on your faith, Krishna is either the supreme being itself, or an avatar of Vishnu, the supreme being itself.

And when the Greco-Roman world was trading art, spices, and ideas with the Middle Eastern and Chinese cultures along the Silk Road, they borrowed many Buddhist ideas, and Christianity lifted these Buddhist ideas as well.

Do you actually know anything about other religions?

You spelled Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, and Nebuchadnezzar wrong.  And "amongst," but I hope that's a typo.

Confucius was a philosopher, not a savior.  Muhammad and Joseph Smith were prophets who founded new faiths after divine revelation, but aren't supernatural themselves.  In Buddhism, eternal life is not even the goal, so that comparison doesn't work.  The goal in Buddhism is to escape the cycle of life, which is a cycle of reincarnation and suffering.  And even then, calling Buddha "dead" is pretty tricky to do.  Krishna is a G-d, so I don't see how you're calling him dead.  It is believed that he doesn't age or deteriorate in any way.  Depending on your faith, Krishna is either the supreme being itself, or an avatar of Vishnu, the supreme being itself.

And when the Greco-Roman world was trading art, spices, and ideas with the Middle Eastern and Chinese cultures along the Silk Road, they borrowed many Buddhist ideas, and Christianity lifted these Buddhist ideas as well.

Do you actually know anything about other religions?

I personally feel the Penecostals put too much emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in worship. Thus where the use of speaking in tongues comes from. The Bible speaks of a Christian being baptised of the Spirit and they take to far imo, however, there other beliefs line up with mine, and I have no doupt they are Christians too.

Speaking in tongues as mentioned the bible is not the same as the video u see on Youtube. In the bible it was when the 12 apostle first went to spread the Gospel to the known world the Abibity to speak, and everyone hear it in their own lang. For example the Apostle Thomas went to the region around the Indus river, for the people to understand him he must have had the gift of tongues.

When it comes to the HS there is a difference between indwelling and possesstion, I feel the people in the video above are misguided into thinking it has more to do with possesstion.

Believing in god limits freedoms? No sir. When I believed in a God I didn't do anything different, because I had nothing different to do. It limited my freedoms in no way. When I was a christian I still a doper, and I still had gay thoughts, but as a christian I though I knew the will of God, which was peace, love, understanding, and balance.

Believing in God didn't limit any of my freedoms morally. All it did was limit my critical thinking skills.

Both sides of the coin do not come down to faith! This is a bullshit argument I've heard far too much.

I, as an atheist, believe in observable reality, nothing more. Theists and people of other religions, believe in things outside of obervable reality, which takes faith to believe in, because you cannot observe things outside of observable reality.

Atheism has nothing to do with science. I don't believe in everything science says, and nothing science teaches has anything to do with my non belief in things outside of observable reality. I only believe in the scientific process, which is, observe, test, and repeat. Science, is based on observable reality, which we can use the scientific process on. We cannot use the scientific process on anything outside of observable reality, and that's why theism is called faith, it's about something outside of obervable reality. Atheism is about rejecting the concept of God. Atheists can observe that there's no observable evidence for God, which means there's no observable reason to believe in god.

Observable reality is where the line is drawn when it comes to faith. Most atheists only believe in observable reality, where as theists believe in things outside of observable reality, that's why it's faith. Now that you have heard what I have to say on this issue do you still think atheism is based on faith? If so, why?

It's useless to wonder about things that currently have no explaination, mankind as a whole should not be caught up in wasting times on unobservable concepts like god, and should be focused on obervable concepts like happiness and peace.

Your second argument is redundant, the bible is also theorys and speculation, just much older, and it's only based upon the thoughts and feelings of men, rather than the scientific process.