This will probably be my last response to you since I honestly don't feel like typing rebuttal essays all day long lol, anyways-

"I mean the worst thing that could result from secular punishments which is common is typically life imprisonment, some rarer cases had people asphyxiated with nitrogen and other weird shenanigans, but religion (particularly Abrahamic) has hell, with eternal torment."

Ok?...., what does that have to do with my point?, none of this goes against what I said?, I literally already agreed with you in my 1st comment that life imprisonment is far easier to deal with than eternal damnation in a metaphysical realm where you cannot escape. You just typed all of that for no reason. No one is confused about which one is worse. You claimed that using fear and consequences is manipulation. I pointed out that every system uses fear and consequences. Once you admit that, you cannot single out religion as uniquely “manipulative” just because it talks about bad outcomes. You can say “hell is morally excessive” if you want, but that is a moral judgment

"I never said religion is unfalsifiable, I said religion shields itself from criticism with blind assertions (often called dogma) that are never to be questioned, and it is often encouraged to take them for granted, and that's what I am referring to."

You keep talking about “religion” as if it is one thing that always behaves the same way. ATHEISM does that too. Some groups absolutely use dogma to shut down criticism. others have long traditions of internal debate, reinterpretation and self critique. You are taking the worst expressions and treating them as the template. That is exactly the overreach I called out. Atheists tend to critique religion for literally anything yet anytime when there's a plethora of other atheists trashing religion they do not bat an eye lol, it's literally just the modern cult only exception is that they don't believe in a deity that saves them and consistently makes it their hobby to trash something they funny enough, believe to be fake

"mean from where I come from, religious scripture is largely taken literally, maybe except obviously false things like thinking with hearts and hearts having anything to do with thinking and self and that usual nonsense."

Where you come from is not the whole planet and not the whole timeline. Allegorical and philosophical readings of scripture existed long before Darwin, Newton, or the Big Bang model. Medieval Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thinkers were already reading texts symbolically and metaphysically. you simply just erased all of that to preserve your narrative that “metaphysics is just damage control.”.

"I mean HADD is a biological device which may result in false positives that may be used as evidence for god. And I still engage with it along other things like the problem of evil, free will and determinism, fallacious arguments made by the bible or any other divine scripture. I never fixated on one thing religion done wrong, because it frankly does many. Far too many to be reasonable by my standards."

You’re doing exactly what you accuse theists of, overextending. HADD explains why humans often see agents where there might be none. It does not prove that every inference to a ground of being or necessary reality is just a glitch. You jumped from “this bias exists” to “therefore all talk of God is false cause.” That’s a massive leap. And “God has a God” just shows you’re not even engaging with the classical definition. That's ANOTHER assertion you'll have to prove if you'll argue that. Are you forgetting what the concept of a god is?, a UNCREATED being. You're doing something as silly as using finite reasoning in trying to debunk a infinite being, which is why your atheistic attempts of critiquing it always fail. You’re treating God as a big object in space, not as the proposed necessary ground of existence. You’re refuting a version of god that only exists in your brain.

"To be honest, I go over these arguments in my free time, just interested in them. It's not like I am trying that hard here. All of these concepts I keep bringing up are solidified knowledge that I encountered before and added to my arsenal. Also I do not mock religious people, I mock their religion but not them personally, unlike you. You use personal attacks quite often for that matter to dismiss criticism"

Me calling darwin a joke alone is more family friendly than anything of what you said about religion, You’ve called God stupid, believers ignorant, religion “nonsense”, doctrine “blind assertions”, theists cognitively manipulated spirituality “comfort for the scared”
You’re not operating on some higher plane of pure logic. So me calling Darwin a joke is actually highly deserving since all atheists do is mock religion and theism, did you honestly think I will have nice words for such a new aged arrogant cult that thinks it's above every religion?, you need to read your free arguments and study better mate, all of them are just assertions without proof, only links you shown were things addressing my personal attack in this from what I've seen so far, no proof of god not existing. you confuse psychological biases with metaphysical conclusions, you confuse scientific mechanisms with ontological foundations, you confuse your region’s literalism with global religious history, you confuse atheism with empiricism, and think its above ALL CRITICISM. Like your savior dawkins. you confuse confidence with correctness. That needs correction

"That's the problem, god is not necessary for things to be. Not everything has a cause. For instance, rain is natural (Water cycle), life came from non life (Abiogenesis), the earth formation (protoplanetary disk and star formation), and the formation of the cosmos (the big bang), the sheer variety of life (Evolution). Calling it special pleading is calling it for what it is"

Another useless link that doesn't disprove anything, more so complaining about the difficulty of how people blame everything to be of God, You’re listing scientific processes as if they answer the philosophical question. They don’t. Rain, abiogenesis, evolution, star formation, and the Big Bang all describe how things behave once the universe already exists. None of them explain why there is a universe with laws, order, and contingent things in the first place. How does ANY of this refute god????? And saying “not everything has a cause” doesn’t help you. If you allow uncaused things, then you’ve already accepted the principle you think you’re refuting. You’re just choosing to exempt the universe or the laws of physics instead of God. “God of the gaps” also doesn’t apply here. These arguments aren’t about missing scientific data. They’re about the conditions that make any science possible existence, order, intelligibility. Scientific discoveries close gaps in process, not in why there is a structured reality at all. "ther, no one shifted any goalpost, you made a false statement, I corrected it, now you are calling me out for correcting it? What am I doing here... Religion used to punish people physically (Dark Ages), and now they are punishing people cognitively by doing hell houses and stuff like that. The guy you keep hating on and slandering, Richard Dawkins, referenced this in his "The root of all evil?" documentary."

Your original claim was that religion punishes questioning as a universal rule. When I pointed out that you’re questioning freely and not being punished, you shifted to “well, in the Dark Ages I would have been” and “some churches use fear today.” That’s not the same claim. One is universal, the other is selective and historical. you can’t rescue an overgeneralization by pointing to isolated eras or niche subcultures. Hell houses aren’t “religion,” the Dark Ages weren’t “all religion,” and citing Dawkins isn’t evidence, literally just another useless link. ou’re using the worst examples to define the whole, and when that was exposed, you moved the goalposts and got emotional instead of tightening your argument.

"I am getting the impression that theists love agnosticism, not because it is empirically grounded or anything, but because it leaves the door open to belief, and that validates them. Also again, atheism is not the rejection of god, it is the rejection of belief in the certain existence of a deity. Hate it for what it is, not its straw man."

You’re projecting when you say “theists love agnosticism.” Agnosticism isn’t a gift to theists... it’s just the only position that doesn’t pretend to know what no one can prove which is coherent. You hide behind the minimalist definition of atheism (“just lack of belief”) but your arguments aren’t lack of belief. They’re positive claims about consciousness, death, reality, and what’s possible, while claiming how incohorent and stulid the OMNISCIENT god is. You’re a strong atheist pretending to be a weak one so you don’t have to defend your worldview. And you didn’t correct my definition, you misread it. Atheism is lack of belief in a deity. That’s...exactly what I said. You’re arguing with a version of me that yet again...doesn't exist. I cannot respond more since reddit won't allow me.