My disbelief is in Western Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism and all of their other denominations, and Pauline-Christianity is the flip side of Western Atheism and the vice versa, whatever their label/name may be, please, right? Why to believe in them, right, please??!
Your disbelief is in atheistic humanism, where skeptical, critical empiricism yields agnostic atheism, naturalism, and rational ethics.
And what is Western atheism? Are atheists different elsewhere? Maybe you mean that atheism is more prevalent in the West.
Also, what are you saying with "right, please?" at the end of many or most sentences? It doesn't have meaning to me and I suspect that that's true for most readers. Unless that's some religious practice like adding PBUH after Mohammad's name, I suggest dropping that from your posting. It adds no information and likely confuses some who wonder just what you mean and why you wrote it.
If we do that, your comment above becomes, "My disbelief is in Western Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism and all of their other denominations, and Pauline-Christianity is the flip side of Western Atheism and the vice versa, whatever their label/name may be. Why to believe in them?" That's easier on the reader with no loss of meaning.
I believe you never understood Christianity to start with.
Christianity is easy to understand. What he indicated was that the magic was unbelievable to him.
I get that a lot, too - that I left Christianity because of some intellectual or character defect. I guess that some people consider Christianity so self-evidently correct that the only way to not accept it to not understand it. Or, if one disagrees about what a Bible passage means, it's because he lacks the help of the Holy Spirit and therefore can't understand the words however simple they are.
It's also common on these threads for individual posters to make similar claims regarding their own ideas being rejected. If you disagree with them, it must be that you're not understanding them, which is then often attributed to some intellectual or character defect.
there is no evidence that the soul does not exist
There is also no evidence that it does exist, which is the important half to the empiricist and critical thinker. For the faith-based thinker, being able to say that his beliefs have not been ruled out seems to be enough, and really, even when that is done (as with creationism), faith-based belief persists.
there is at least literature saying that it does exist.
That's not evidence for the soul's existence. That's evidence that some people believe that it exists.
