No, for a few reasons. One, it is an “extraordinary claim with no extraordinary evidence”. There is absolutely no evidence that any god exists. Whereas, ther

No, for a few reasons. One, it is an “extraordinary claim with no extraordinary evidence”. There is absolutely no evidence that any god exists. Whereas, there are strong indicators of other contributors to religion. How would you explain the tendency for most people to adopt the religion of the country where they live, instead of examining ALL religions to decide which one they believe the most? Or, the tendency for indoctrinated children to have lifelong religious belief, versus NO tendency for adults to spontaneously adopt a religion after having no religion? I also hugely dislike that religion is used as a club to end conversations and justify nearly anything, ironically usually after misreading the religious text used as the source. Even if the text is quoted correctly, it clearly documents ancient life and not modern life so it can’t perfectly describe any situation we may face anyway! And for some people, it is not acceptable to combine non-religious sources of information to make up the difference, making conversations difficult. It is also frustrating to see scenarios accepted only because they are religious. For any given religious story X, if you substituted all the character names and places with fictitious ones you could get anyone (religious or not) to agree that the stories are false or at least improbable or ridiculous; and yet, if it’s the religious version, it is somehow infallible truth. It is even more frustrating when demonstrating obvious contradictions has no effect on religious believers.