Isn't calling it "shit" a little derogatory and needlessly provocative? I'm an atheist myself, but I prefer to dub the "spiritual" / supernatural aspects as "e

Isn't calling it "shit" a little derogatory and needlessly provocative? I'm an atheist myself, but I prefer to dub the "spiritual" / supernatural aspects as "empirically unsupported" - who are we to suggest that we can empirically prove "god" cannot exist, just because we cannot prove "god" exists? The religions themselves served as (imperfect) vessels of knowledge transfer across meaningful chunks of recent (last few thousand years) human history. Sure they've caused wars, endorsed slavery, and a million other objective evils, but does that mean humanity ought to discard all the good they've done, too? How many lives were saved by people avoiding parasites as a result of avoiding pork? How many murders didn't happen because someone was afraid of being sent to the fiery depths of "hell" due to the judgement of a "god" - real or not? How many millions would've been deeper in poverty if not for religious mandates against usury? Is it not cruel and vindictive to strip the hopeless of their hope on the basis that their hope was shared by evildoers, even if that hope is misplaced into fantasy? The dopamine and serotonin in their brains certainly is real. Just food for thought.