Could you elaborate on this point a bit ?

Yeah. You could feel unhappy a lot more if you take the pills usually prescribed to schizophrenics because side-effects of those pills include mental fog and weight gain. You could also be a less helpful person to others because you would be less able to do thinks if you're on a high enough dose to "zombify" you. Also, Erving Goffman's work shows that situations where people are in an institution, as he defines the term, cause people to become stupider and less capable. (Kudos to the mental health system for trying to get people out of those places faster-- most people who go in get out after a little while now, as opposed to the months it usually took when he was studying. However, the problems aren't eliminated and his research is still applicable.) Hence, it could make you a worse and unhappier person to undergo treatment.

(and possibly those around him, depending on severity)

NO. That takes a BIG NO. Severity of mental illness is NOT correlated with violence. It's correlated with self-harm, but not hurting other people.

Mental illness is correlated (no surprise here) with being abused and with substance abuse. Both of those are correlated with violence, leading to higher rates of violence among the mentally ill. Even when not corrected for, the rate isn't that high and the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of it. But when those effects ARE corrected for, mental illness does not, by itself, cause violence.

At all. End of story. Axe-crazy villains in the movies are unrealistic and offensive portrayals of mental illness. /rant

I have to admit, this mode of thought is rather alien to me, and thus I have a tough time understanding it. To me, this sounds perilously close to wishful thinking. To use an exaggerated example, I would definitely feel happier if I knew that I had a million dollars in the bank. Having a million dollars would also empower me to be a better person, since I could donate at least some of it to charity, or invest it in a school, etc. However, I am not going to go ahead and believe that I have a million dollars, because... well... I don't.

This mode of thought is alien to me too, since I wasn't advocating it. I'm confused about how you could come to that conclusion. I have been unclear, it seems.

(Seriously, what?)

Okay, so I mean, if you think you only want to fulfill your own selfish desires, and then become a Christian, and even though you don't want to, decide it's right to be nice to other people and spend time praying, and then after a while learn that it makes you really happy to be nice and happier than you've ever been before to pray. That's what I meant.

In addition, there's a question of what one sees as being "better". As we'd talked about earlier, at least some theists do honestly believe that persecuting gay people and forcing women to wear burqas is a good thing to do (and a moral imperative). Thus, they will (presumably) interpret any gut feelings that prompt them to enforce the burqa ordinances even harder as being good and therefore godly and true. You (and I), however, would do just the opposite. So, we both use the same method but arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions; doesn't this mean that the method may be flawed ?

Yes. It's only to be used as an adjunct to thinking things through, not the end-all-be-all of your strategy for deciding what to do in life.

The more conservative Christians believe that feminism is a sin, whereas you do not; but how would you convince an impartial observer that you are right and they are wrong ?

My argument isn't against people who think feminism is sinful (would you like links to sane, godly people espousing the idea without being hateful?) but with the general tenor of the piece. See below.

My main objection to this line of reasoning is that it involves the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Who is to say (other than the Pope, perhaps) what being a Christian "really means" ?

Well, not the Pope, certainly. He's a Catholic. But I thought a workable definition of "Christian" was "person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ and tries to follow his teachings", in which case we have a pretty objective test. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors and be merciful. He repeatedly behaved politely toward women of poor morals, converting them with love and specifically avoiding condemnation. Hence, people who are hateful or condemn others are not following his teachings. If that was a mistake, that's different, just like a rationalist could be overconfident-- but to systematically do it and espouse the idea that you should be hateful clearly goes against what Jesus taught as recorded in the Bible. Here's a quote from the link:

If I were a king, I'd make a law that any woman who wore a miniskirt would go to jail. I'm not kidding!

Compare it with a relevant quote from the Bible, which has been placed in different places in different versions, but the NIVUK (New International Version UK) puts it at the beginning of John 8:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group

4 and said to Jesus, Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.

5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?

6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.

7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.

8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, Woman, where are they? Has no-one condemned you?

11 No-one, sir, she said. Then neither do I condemn you, Jesus declared. Go now and leave your life of sin.

So, it's not unreasonable to conclude that, whether or not Christianity is correct and whether or not it's right to lock people up for wearing miniskirts, that attitude is unChristian.

I don't have any specific links right now (I will try to find some later), but apparently there is a whole website dedicated to the subject. Wikipedia also has a list. I personally know at least two people who converted from relatively moderate versions of Christianity to Wicca and Neo-Paganism, and report being much happier as the result, though obviously this is just anecdotal information and not hard data.

Thank you! I'll look that over.