No, there is no conflict. If you insert a canon then there is a conflict, but, for example, a maltheist approach would suffice to make the belief highly functional in logic.

I really think its difficult to choose between two sides when most arguments have much more... Also, there is always a huge mass of evidence that is never considered when you are forced to choose.

That being said, if individuals are clear minded, a question might help you think...

Yes.

Humans should be able to end their life when they so choose. To be fair, such a person should undergo psychological testing and a waiting period should be forced before the individual will be assisted to safeguard against a sociological copy crisis. Also; the individual should receive the proper understanding for his situation and further aid in rectifying any such situation leading to suicidal tendencies. In the end though, the individual must have freedom to end its life if it so chooses.

Premise subjective.

The individual have emotions and those emotions obviously is enough to exist. Therefore we have "reasons" in a subjective sense. It is not really a debate, humans have a reason to exist or humans would all die out in evolution.

DEFINE REASON!

I really think this argument is falsely premised.

Both functions badly. I would choose anarchism because the educational functionality in "freedom of the mind" works better.

To be honest, I hold no clear position but I tend towards that the story is mythological to an extent; obviously at the time there where many "sons of god" going around. There is to little concrete evidence for the Jesus Christ figure to be considered a real historical figure, and there is some evidence pointing towards the possibility; therefore, the answer cannot be clear.