How to argue against this claim

[Brian37]

nd your source for the claim is...?

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/globa...nity-exec/

No, those are part of the actions WE can and should take as humans. But unless they also decide to help themselves, all our help will be useless in the end.

We agree.

Those who don't follow christianity are also helping. One doesn't need religion to help another. Also religion on it's own is of no help, without the human intervention.

Many of those who don't follow christianity are also helping people in need, but they're only helping in the physical capacity. People also need help in the spiritual capacity. We provide both. We are "Christ's hands and feet" and are the human intervention.

Every religion claims kind motifs and has stories of acts of compassion they all point to. That does not make any god real. What that should say to you that it is not a religion or a book doing good, it is our natural sense of empathy and compassion that leads us to cooperate. If we did not evolve to cooperate we would not have evolved. The downside is that cooperation is limited to tribes and our species ignorance of its own natural group survival combined with gap filling and selection bias is why you argue for a non existent god. It is why Muslims argue for a non existent god. It is why Hindus pray to their non existent gods.

Our ability as a species to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, not the myth clubs or comic books humans invent and falsely center their lives around. The ancient Egyptians falsely believed for 3,000 years in their polytheistic gods and those gods were not real.

If religion brought worldwide peace to the world as all religions claim, we should have expected to see it by now.