[_urga]

I think your point is genuine, but would it be fair to rephrase your personal problem as the lack of convincing arguments... as far as you are aware?

Also, just to point out something you take for granted:

You use the word "good" in your argument.

What is your standard of "good"ness?

Is it an objective, universal, absolute standard of good and evil?

Or is it whatever the loudest voice in the room demands it to be?

[username90]

Religion is not philosophy. We can have a concept of moral and good without belief in a god or something supernatural. For humans, everyone agrees that society is nicer to live in when people are nice to each other. So teaching people to be nice to each other lies in everyone's interests, a God serves no purpose here.

Note that there are Christian and Buddhist philosophy etc which is useful. However, that is philosophy and not religion. You can believe in the golden rule without being christian. You can agree with the teachings of Jesus without believing that he is the son of God. You can read the Bible without thinking that it is anything more than ancient pop-culture. Also, you can believe that some things are "good" without believing in a god.

So as far as we know Religion is no better than snake oil. The main purpose of snake oil is to redistribute resources from naive people to conmen. Snake oil might have some positive placebo benefits, and maybe snake oil inspired some people to pursue medicine and help people for real, but snake oil is still just snake oil.

[_urga]

"We can have a concept of moral and good without belief in a god"

Sure, but how would that be an objective, universal, absolute standard of good and evil? You claim philosophy, and yet this is an age-old philosophical problem. For example, see Hume's guillotine, i.e. Hume's is-ought distinction.

"teaching people to be nice to each other lies in everyone's interests, a God serves no purpose here."

Is truth determined by fact and reason, or merely by the purpose it serves?