I extend my belated apologies to John Dule, his pseudo-neckbeard atheism now looks like a scholarly analysis by one of the most sagacious philosophers of religion by comparison with the recent inane adolescent edgelord ramblings of James Monroe.
I tend to calibrate the intellectual quality of my responses to fit the topic at hand, so I rarely feel the need to put in much effort on religious subjects.
You put in as much effort to make an argument against religion as those do in justifying their blind faith. Remember, if you state against any religion sentiment you will get labeled as a neckbeard.
This would hold more water if I could trust that you believe that it's possible for faith not to be blind or that yours is the peak of criticism of religion. If I wanted my beliefs challenged in an intellectually stimulating way, I'd read Xenophanes (some of whose critiques of the religious currents of his time I have incorporated into my understanding thereof in my own practice) instead of the insecure ramblings of precocious adolescents with a "Jordan Peterson DESTROYS Annoying Feminist" understanding of Serious Discourse and a South Park understanding of American religion.
Trust me, I have spent many hours reading some of the brights making credible criticism of the way organized religion has damaged the world. Bertrand Russell and Christopher Hitchens sent me a path to nonbeliever through intellectually stimulating work that have become influential in the tide against faith. Nietzsche, Sigmond Freud, Thomas Paine, Robert S. Ingersoll, many more philosophers who have shaped my perception of the universe. John Dule is much more than a neckbeard ideologue, he possesses such wit and comic timing that makes him one of our indelible members going today.
A key subtlety that you fail to recognize is that one can be critical of organized religion without having this reflexive hostility to personal faith. You insist that they're the same thing out of an ideological conviction that all faith is a damaging force. Humans are not entirely rational beings, and trying to force ourselves to be entirely rational is a denial of our nature that results in the great alienation that we so often see in the post-religious era.
I, too, deplore the great injustices wrought by organized religion, including those forms of it that have inspired my own practice, but I can recognize that these evils are not inherent to the idea of holding metaphysical beliefs that aren't explicitly determined by the scientific standard of the day. The irony is that my beliefs are probably far more flexible than your insistence on the orthodoxy of a particular group of pseudointellectuals from several decades ago and an extremely narrow interpretation of capital-S "Science" as a monolith that suits your preconceptions.
