Are some people truly better off believing?

[FatAndFaithless]

Here's something to think about - Atheists focus heavily, as demonstrated by your points A + B, on science and the truth...

Well, no, not me. I'm not interested in any sort of 'truth' claims, I'm interested in what can be justified by evidence. And there are plenty of atheists that are just as ignorant and dismissive of science as theists.

Here's the thing though - It is very easy for me, a middle class western man, to say science and what is verifiable is better and more desirable, but I can't possibly criticize people who are ignorant due to poverty, marginalization, and because they don't understand science they think god created the world, etc.

I'm not criticizing people for being ignorant. I wouldn't call an african child stupid or somehow worse for believing in his cultural fairy tales. My statement is literally talking about the idea of faith and religion as a whole, not in any specific circumstance. Verifiable, testable, useful methods of investigating the world and solving problems are simply better than fairy tales that end discovery rather than stimulate it. Those people who are "ignorant due to poverty, marginalization, and because they don't understand science they think god created the world, etc" can be helped by the verifiable reliable and effective methods that I support.

The problem with your reasoning is that it assumes that (1) Science can solve everything

Please do not make shit up. I have never, ever on this forum said explicitly or implicitly than I think science can/will solve everything. I've made it clear that I actually think there are issues that science will never solve. I do not assume that, thank you very much.

but it's mostly impossible for science to replace the effect religion brings

Well I never said science can replace all the effects of religion. I said that any (I'll soften the position to "most") positive effects of religion are not intrinsic to religion, and can be gotten in totally secular ways (sense of community, inclusiveness, support structures, etc).

- And no, science can't solve everything

never said it could, and in fact have said the opposite on several occasions, see above.

(2) You assume that the truth matters the most when sometimes I wonder if values like happiness aren't more important.

Again, I'm not really interested in any sort of transcendent or objective 'truth' concept. I care about what works to help people and progress society and technology and public health and ideas that actually help those people "ignorant due to poverty, marginalization, and because they don't understand science they think god created the world, etc". And fairy tales don't do that except in the simplest, stopgap sense.

In theory, if I consider happiness superior to the truth and believing in god makes me happier then I could argue belief in god can be rational.

Only if you consider 'rational' to mean 'based on what makes me feel good', then yes. And if you're going to purport that 'what makes me feel good' is rational, then you've instantly given the most insane acts of barbarity and superstition the validation of being 'rational' because it made the participants 'happier'.

I'm not being a theist apologist, it's just something to think about. If I was born in another country I might not be an atheist posting here but a very devout believer. Nature and nurturing change everything. I happen to value the truth - But I don' see anything as absolute truth, just the most likely possibility.

I'll refer you to my previous comments about 'truth'. And as to your "nurturing change everything" idea...that's the point. And changing things in this world for the better, helping people, alleviating the ills of suffering, is only possible when people take an evidence-based, verifiable method of approaching these problems, not by fairy tales. Telling starving children in Africa that they're going to heaven and that they're part of God's master plan might make those specific children 'happier', but it does not stop the problem of starving children.

---

There are still certain things I want to do very much, but can''t and might never be able to again, like activism, volunteering for the homeless, watching the news or reading a newspaper, or even following freely the kind of Twitter accounts I'd like to follow. 

Why can't you do those things?

Avoidance of potential OCD triggers still lowers my quality of life and capacity to contribute to society, and because of the obsessions I still sometimes think about suicide. If even I think I'd feel better with certain types of religion, what about the many people with none of the advantages and resources that I have at my disposal? 

I've never said that people can't get some sort of personal happiness from religion. I've only stated that those ideas aren't in any way substantiated. And I for one would rather focus on real, effective ways of helping you (and the bigger thing, the many more people in the future that might experience something similar) instead of putting a religious finger in the dyke.