OT, Regarding Children Disobeying Their Parents

Regarding the slavery issue, Paul was preaching the word to people who were already enslaved by the Romans. God refers to us as His children. You also did not finish the quote (conveniently), which says in its entirety:

"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. 25 For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.” Colossians 3:22-4:1 ESV

Well I'm pretty sure we don't know shit about religion when we're babies; so yeah, we have no religion... so we are atheists.

An atheist is a belief that there is no God. How can babies be atheists when all they know is there mom and dad?

You just contradicted yourself and proved my point

How?

Another contradiction, another point proven.

How?

"Every time anyone begins a statement with that, a huge RED FLAG goes up in my head. I know from then on not to take the rest of the statement seriously."

Funny, I'm the same way with most atheists. Soon as I hear that, I know the entire discussion will be laughable before it even begins. :)

"I will bet five bucks that your parents were Christian and you were forced to go to church with them, taught religious beliefs without question. That is the definition of indoctrination."

1.) Five bucks? You'd think if you were that damn sure, you'd bet more than that? Huh, seems like someone isn't as sure as he thinks he is.

2.) My family is Christian and I was never forced to attend church if I didn't want to go. Believe it or not, I didn't always like going, so I didn't. Thus, not indoctrinated.

"Actually, statistics back me up, so no. I will take factual evidence over another's personal experience any day."

Okay. Because science and statistics can sum up every Christian and every aspect of God and whether or not He exists and every miracle believers have witnessed in their lives. Again, laughable.

"What do you think this 'logical path' is?"

I don't know, you tell me. That's your life-path isn't it? Can you see it, hear it, feel it? Logic, I mean. Logic is immaterial, so how can you believe in it and nothing else. Furthermore, what kind of a logical person continuously argues against something he doesn't believe in. You sound like a skipping record.

It's all the more likely that God and Allah are the same being.

No it isn't. God and Allah have major differences. They are too numerous to go into here, unless you are dying to know.

They have been known of for roughly the same time,

I'd hardly call 600 years roughly the same time.

have similar ways of teaching,

In a very general sense, yes. But, as I said, there are key differences.

both sent down Messiahs to deliver their messages

But there is a massive difference in the two stories. Christianity teaches the death of Jesus, whereas Islam teaches that he is still alive in heaven, ready to destroy all religion apart from Islam.

Besides, God and Allah are the only ones that have sirvived from ancient culture to this day.

I think there are around 2-3 billion people who would disagree with you there.

All the others have died out, and have been forgotten.

So Vishnu has died out? Regardless, just because they are no longer worshiped, doesn't make them false.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is likely also goong to die out.

Uh! Such blasphemy! No beer volcano or stripper factory for you, sir/madam!

Besides, there are only two options on the board: Athiesm and Christianity.

No, I thought I explained why there are considerably more than two options on the board.

Christianity is putting money on the most likely horse and having a good chance of winning,

In what universe is Christianity the most likely?

while Athiesm puts money on no horse and losing it needlessly.

You can't lose money if you don't put any down. But, sticking with that analogy. If I were to bet on which of the two were true, atheism would be the runaway favourite. There isn't a shred of evidence for Christianity, yet mountains to the otherwise. So, it is better to live and enjoy your life without God, than waste it pointlessly worshiping him.

Be perfectly clear though, there are athiests who have done immeasurable good.

There are also theists who have done immeasurable good. Hitler supported animal rights. Is Nazism right then?

As long as they don't hate religion, I respect them

I fear that you may have a dearth of respect for me then...

But not even taking a chance is confusing to me.

It's absolutely impossible not to take a chance, seeing as nothing is absolutely proven yet. I do take a chance, yet I consider mine to be a much smaller one than yours.

It's all the more likely that God and Allah are the same being.

Assuming that they exist, which no objective probability can be attached to. Further, unless you consider all monotheistic omniscient all powerful creators the same, that's incorrect, for many reasons which I don't plan on getting into.

They have been known of for roughly the same time, have similar ways of teaching, and both sent down Messiahs to deliver their messages.

None of these prove anything, they're just similarities. But, just so you know, Christianity started in the first century, Islam the 7th.

Besides, there are only two options on the board: Athiesm and Christianity.

Yes, but if your only argument for Christianity is conditional that there are only two standpoints, that is a weak argument.

Christianity is putting money on the most likely horse and having a good chance of winning, while Athiesm puts money on no horse and losing it needlessly.

Both positions are putting money where they think are right. It is folly to do otherwise.