Religion is a form of Stockholm Syndrone.

It does. I suggested that religious people do not see their relationship with God in the way that SS requires. In fact, it does not even apply in the example you gave. A religious person would not thank God for 'saving' their life, except flippantly. Their relationship to God and view of death is completely different to what you believe. A lot depends upon the individual beliefs of the person, but - to give one extreme example - the person's life is not his own anyway so he has nothing to be thankful for. He is merely following God's will. In addition, and this is a more general point, whether or not he died in this case is completely irrelevant because of his views of the afterlife.

Cognitive dissonance would support your argument if you were right, but you are not. You are using a very specific example to infer some generalisation about religious belief being irrational. But you really did not need SS to 'prove' that. And a religious person does not see the 'troublesome contradictions' in their belief, otherwise they would not be religious in the first place, so you end up being wrong for two different reasons. Neither SS nor cognitive dissonance have anything to do with religious belief.

But 'challenging ideas' and 'learning' in a truly neutral academic sense isn't what the OP is doing. He's clearly attacking faith, and disguising it as some sort of intellectual thing. 'Stockholm Syndrome', 'victims of' etc, besides using childish and snide arguments (Oh, why doesn't God do this then if he's almighty, ha ha ha), is just an example of trying to rabble rouse.
Finding the roots of someone's faith? Great.
Examining and studying religions in terms of it's relevance to world history? Great.
Challenging genuine real world concerns about the behaviours of extremists? Yup.

The point is, all this is, is all this is doing is trying to raise an argument when there is no need. This is subtley or not much, trying to make people question their faith and use points, such as "Why doesn't God do anything?' that you know we'll never know and can only be explained by pure faith.

Because there would be no war if there were no religion..

Sigh. OP. You say religion starts wars. Actually, it doesn't. Don't be so dumb. Do you really think the reason behind many men's motive for war was/is God? No darling, where's the gain in that...What about greed, power, envy, ignorance. All of which are looked down on by Jesus. If those who were 'religious' were true spiritual believers who really followed Jesus' way, do you really think they would commit acts of war?

If you want to debate 'religion' know your stuff. Not history, but what modern faith is like right now. How dare you speak of something you know so little of? You are the one acting like a man who agrees with war, attempting to place yourself above others and demean them.

You need to understand religion is very much man, but men who exploit faith to get what they want. Religion is just a more than one makes us stronger situation, where people group together and actually have little tue faith in them. At my church they are always going on about not being religious.

I'm tired of this. Sure I'm an atheist, but you know what? Why does it even matter to you why people believe in God? It's comforting, it's been around since the dawn of intelligent man to explain things people can't, and in any case it makes people happy.
Just leave them alone. Live and let live.

I've argued against people who regurgitate this point again and again...Pretty sure I made this point to you but you may have just conveniently "forgotten" it.

Do you think removing religion from the world would increase war in the world? I very much doubt it.

To say religion is the cause for all wars is silly but to say, as you are, that it has played no part in wars is sheer ignorance.

If you remove a motive for an action, the action may or may not be eliminated but its prevalence will never increase. I think that, for an issue as serious as war, the removal of a motive would be very useful indeed.

Now stop spouting this rubbish and actually try thinking for yourself.

What proof have you got for peoples' relationship with a deity is what you say it is? I don't think what you say is true but I am prepared to be persuaded if you can find me some evidence of your assertions.

I also think you are wrong that people who are religious don't struggle with the contradictions in their beliefs. For example, many religious people question why a just god would let kids die in wars and famines but let dictators and criminals live. What is your answer to that if you have find no contradictions in your beliefs assuming you have them?

You are not acknowledging the important distinction I made. Religious people do not struggle with contradictions in their beliefs, because there are no contradictions in religious belief; what is ironic, especially when you mention cognitive dissonance, is that you are attempting to hold contradictory ideas about the nature of religious belief in order to prove some spurious link between it and SS. What religious people struggle with is accepting those religious beliefs in the first place (e.g. God's existence); and this is very natural.

Your first comment is so flippant that I do not know whether to take you seriously. If you are interested in knowing more about religious believe try reading almost any book over the last two-thousand years (I am not joking). For what it is worth, I suggested that a person's relationship with God depends upon their religion and particular denomination, but in all cases I can think of - so far as Christianity is concerned -I cannot think of an example applicable to the SS example you used (i.e. where religious belief or doctrine mirrors the situation outlined).

That is an argument from ignorance, just because you can't think of an example dose not mean there are not many of them. You obviously have no sources for your assertions, otherwise, you would have bought them here.

I think your assertion that there is no contradictions in religious beliefs is so ludicrous as to be a joke. Why don't you address the arguments I have put forward instead of making baseless assertions of which you have no proof.

Or is this an example in which like religion faith is better than proof because you certainly have not provided any proof so far.