I can try, although I'm not sure I promised a universal demonstration (I kind of said it in a 'food for thought' way). But as one example of the gist of the kinds of things I'd say, I'd claim that pride is a delusion because it requires that moral responsibility is coherent; moral responsibility is not coherent, and a psychological construct that depends on something incoherent is delusional.

Testimony is still testimony. Whether we take it seriously is another matter altogether.

Do you believe the alien abduction stories, why or why not? How about the efficacy of voodoo dolls?

Why is your definition of pride contingent on moral responsibility, and why do you consider it non-coherent?

I suggest you go read Greenleaf.

He's someone who did a thorough examination of the evidence. He'd didn't just have an 8 year old tell him something was a fairy story and go along with the 8 year old's assessment.

Greenleaf wrote a landmark textbook on legal evidence.

Since the bible is riddled with legal terms like testament, inheritance, law, etc. it might behoove you to check out his opinion.

He might be able to explain something in detail to you.

Of course, if your mind is closed it's closed. Why are you wasting theists time with your banter?

We're not the ones going around demanding evidence all the time.

And I'm not willing to grant atheists have any eye witness testimony expertise. Why should they. They mostly dabble in science not in testimonial evidence. I prefer a genuine expert on the subject who has assessed the evidence. In this case Greenleaf validates my own perception of the testimony as he does millions of other people who read the transcripts.

There is no reason for me to assume along with an atheist that the Apostles are specifically weak because a body of evidence can be generally weak or of a lesser calibre.

I am sure you know the difference between a statement and question right?

I was asking a question as to why he has not. I would never, jokingly or otherwise tell/suggest someone to kill themselves.

I think if he asks himself that question he will find what he wants to live FOR.

Well, at least you got that part right.

Why should we if we assess cues better than atheists?

Perception is the basis for the ability to assess evidence.

The fact is that you're perceiving heresay to be evidence (and it's really quite worse than that), which may be enough for some claims. It is, however, not nearly enough for supernatural claims since eye witness testimony has been proven wrong every single time the event can be studied to a high degree. Why do you think no one has collected Randi's million despite millions of claims of personal supernatural phenomenon?

Getting back to OP 's state of mind. Some thoughts on his situation:

A person with long term clinical depression should seek help from a therapist. The current treatment of depression is much better than now than it has been.

People can fnd meaning in choosing to immerse one's self in taking care for another speical person or persons. Get out of chronic introspection and get into doing things for others. Humans are fundamentally social animals.

People can also find some activity that enthralls them like playing poker, travel, sports, etc. McFold has likely been energized by some type of activity sometime in his life and needs to get back to it and to grow it.

Good luck, buddy.

I have no familiarity with Randi so no comment.

He's a former magician who offers $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate any supernatural claim under laboratory conditions. Despite millions of people on this planet who claim supernatural powers (usually mundane ones) no one has collected. Obviously then it's likely that these millions of people are simply deluded, not unlike personal religious testimony.

It never occurred to you that God might have set things up so it isn't testable empirically?

If it was testable then why all the hoopla about faith?

It's amazing how much the non-testable and the imaginary have in common.

To take pride in doing something it's necessary to think one is morally responsible for doing it, people are not typically proud of doing something by accident or against their will. It's probably a derail to discuss why moral responsibility is incoherent here, we've discussed it in the huge free will thread in SMP. I brought it up because some atheists might think that 'fulfillment' can be had by being proud of their achievements, and it's true people are proud of their achievements but that's based on the illusion that they were morally responsible for what they did, according to me anyway. So to op's point concerning whether life is fulfilling without God, I suggest that we can cast doubt on one of the main alternatives to be fulfilled.

I would agree with your premise (nicely thought out by the way) but not with your conclusion. It is precisely because we get to define fulfillment that we can be fulfilled. If I define living a fulfilled life as living a happy one, and my life's totality meets my definition of happy, then I am, by definition, fulfilled.