Friend deleted me after 2 years because i'm atheist

[Aractus]

My friend that i've known for 2 years just cut all communication with me after finding out i'm an atheist. On so many occasions we have argued, and every single time he just says "i'm right because i'm right", we argued about esports betting, and stuff involving counter-strike(which is where i met him), we did it for fun but somewhere along the line I stopped having fun.

You're not a digital sprite you know, you can't be "deleted". DAMN KIDS THESE DAYS AND THEIR VIRTUAL FRIENDS!

I got sick of him ignoring my logical arguments that I spent time on and saying "You're fucking stupid" never giving any reason to his logic. I didn't hate him, but I just didn't like how he argued. So many times, and i mean so many times I typed these long things to him explaining why he was wrong IN DETAIL so he could understand it, but he just insisted on not trying to understand anything else but what he said. He was one of my only friends though.

Ah the wisdom of youth.

Logic is not infallible, at all. In fact science, nature, and a whole realm of things are non-intuitive and do not follow conventional logic. It's not logical to look at a tree and say "I see a geometric shape and I shall call it a fractal". In fact until the fractal was discovered in its own right, no one had thought to say "hey that tree is in the shape of a fractal, and so is that shoreline".

You think you're right, he thinks he's right - so what?

Last night I was having a personal conversation with him and I said this exactly "I'm an atheist, and this is probably why we might disagree on what our life goals are, but i dont think my different view should effect our relationship or mean anything". He agreed at first, and we continued the conversation. 30 minutes ago though, he was arguing that "Marijuana isn't bad for you, and scientists proved it". I said very specifically "Yes they proved there aren't any long term effects, but that doesn't mean it's not bad for you, obviously it worsens your memory and focus, along with motivation". Instead of conceding my obviously right point(this is what he does basically every time, trust me there have been a lot of times, like almost every day for two years we have argued about something), he can't stand to admit he's wrong, he just replied "No you're fucking stupid kid. Most retarded thing i've ever heard in my life".

See here's an example you've just given - where you are wrong. There are negative long-term effects associated with recreational use of Marijuana. Emphysema, cancer, psychosis, it can trigger schizophrenia, it makes a whole range of psychotic illness worse and prevents treatments from being effective, it causes and worsens both depressive disorders and anxiety disorders, it can be more addictive than alcohol, dependence is more persistent (more difficult to wean off) than alcohol, and there is evidence requiring further study that suggests there are long-term effects on brain function (see Filbey, 2014). That said it also has therapeutic qualities - but that's true of almost any drug (including tobacco, alcohol, heroin, Ice, caffeine, cocaine, etc) - and it doesn't make a good idea to self-medicate using it. We don't know what the "safe level" is for any of those effects I just mentioned, because it hasn't been studied in the same detail that alcohol and other drugs have. There is no safe level for triggering mental health issues though, and the emphysema and cancer risks (as well as other risks) are cumulative.

While the effects you mentioned, pertaining to memory, focus and motivation are valid, you ignored a whole slew of far more serious health conditions associated with the drug. That makes both of you wrong.

I guess all this time I always thought that maybe if i explained my points(about anything remember, we argued about random stuff) maybe he would accept them. Nope. Not once did he ever consider my point of view, or admit he was wrong. No exaggeration. 

This time however, he did something I didn't expect. After cursing at me and ignoring my point, he said "I bet you're one of those people who argues against God on atheist websites rofl". This set me the fuck off. You have to realize that I told him that after being nervous, knowing he was a christian, but also one of my best friends. I might be acting like he was the devil incarnate, but we defnitely had good times. This remark tipped me over the limit. I wrote almost an essay response to him. I told him how incredibly intolerant, ignorant, and arrogant he was. I listed out everything that he was wrong, how he would cry and crawl up in a corner any time someone brought logic in to the equation, and how he would instantly start cussing me out any time I said he was wrong. He removed me from everything, steam, skype, phone, everything. Blocked me on everything he could, even blocked my number.

Well, perhaps you shouldn't tell people they're "wrong" then?

I am so fed up with religion. Maybe religion is not inherently what caused this, but it's definitely the foundation for the way he thinks.
DO YOU SEE WHY RELIGION HAS A NEGATIVE OUTCOME? BECAUSE PEOPLE START REFUSING TO ACCEPT LOGIC, AND CONVINCE THEMSELVES THEY ARE RIGHT. IT'S THE REASON THAT ONE OUT OF MY ONLY TWO FRIENDS ONLINE REMOVED ME FROM HIS LIFE. I WOULDN'T SAY SOMETHING THIS PERSONAL BUT WHO CARES AT THIS POINT. I HAVE LITERALLY NO CLOSE FRIENDS IRL. HE IS ONE OF THE ONLY CLOSE FRIENDS I HAD. STILL THINK RELIGION ISN'T HARMFUL? TELL THAT TO HIM AND ALL THE PEOPLE LIKE HIM WHO RUN FROM LOGIC BECAUSE OF IT.

Incorrect. Let me quote you a passage from Williams & Sternthal (2007): "The strongest evidence exists for the association between religious attendance and mortality, with higher levels of attendance predictive of a strong, consistent and often graded reduction in mortality risk."

There are positives AND negatives that religion provides on health, but overall it is generally positive for populations. That isn't saying that there isn't harms - but usually the benefits well outweigh the harms. One of the things that is not positive (that we now know) is assimilation, so wanting to change people to your beliefs, values, and culture. And we also know that people who are excluded from participating in a religion is also negative. But no more so than any other "us and them" divisions between people.

Logic is not the backbone of truth. Often it prevents people from understanding the true nature of things. You might know that insulin is an important hormone that regulates blood glucose - in fact most people know that. What most people don't know is that it also has a long term effect on hunger - more insulin makes people more hungry and makes them get fat. That wasn't logical, that wasn't intuitive, it's something discovered from empirical evidence.

Miasma theory was logical too. Empirical evidence proved the communicability of disease and that it was made up of some form of microscopic matter (hypothesised to be microbes and later proved empirically).

Also, why should what seems logical to you seem logical to other people? There are different ways to use logic to arrive to different conclusions based on the starting conditions. If you walk into a supermarket and find the condiments - is the "logical" choice necessarily going to be the right one? Is there perhaps more than one right choice?