The real religion?

[SteveII]

So it seems to me that what you're saying Steve, is that Christians think they are better off, in some way. And I'm sure you'd have to concede that Muslims also think they are better off also. Same for every religion. What you suggest is not unique to Christianity. This is my point. Everyone thinks they are the winners, but from an unbiased perspective, there is nothing to show for it. I see God favouring no one. You'd think I'd be able to see that for myself, no?

Just think? Why not objectively better off? Psychologically and sociologically well-being is important--actually the most important measure of a person's "better off-ness". 

Islam is not comparable to Christianity in this way. Islam is significantly more about following rules and formulas and not about a "changed person" as a result of salvation and a relationship with God. The god of Islam is not about grace, love, forgiveness, compassion and relationships with people. 

They can't all actually be better off, unless all the religions are true. So how does this work? Isn't this just evidence of confirmation bias? If you can't show me how they are better off in ways that aren't just them interpreting events a certain way, then my point stands, I feel.

In addition to my points above, I think Christianity has superior life-changing attributes over other religions. But even if other religions had similar effects on its converts, that does not make them all right or all wrong. You would have to examine the truth claims of each. 

And also, it needs to explainable by something other than social/psychological benefits of being part of a religion, and believing it is true. For example, the placebo effect only works when someone believes what they are doing is real. And the "born again" stuff is similarly easily explained. If people find hope, or something to believe in, it can change their attitude. This applies to anything, true or not. It's not unique to Christianity. This is not evidence of God actually doing anything to reward its followers.

Why does an advantage have to be explained by 'something other than social/psychological benefits'? Why isn't a person's experience with and relationship with God real evidence of God's grace and compassion (something he is doing for his followers)--especially when the experiment has been done billions of times? Someone who has not experienced this can not judge it and especially cannot claim that it is not God's reward to his followers. 

For your point to be true, you would have to be able to develop the same effect in a person without religion. How does one get a person's nature to change from whatever state they were in before to one of "...love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" as well as hope? If you can't generate that change with regularity with something non-religious, then how can you really determine whether it is real or not? If you cannot determine whether it is real, you cannot make the claim that God is not working in the lives of his followers.