Religion is a system designed to destroy logic and rationality. Consequently, it divides humanity.

Almost all religious arguments rely on circular reasoning. Typically :

- It's true because it's written in the Bible / It's written in the Bible because it's true.

- It's good because God willed it / God willed it because it's good.

In these cases, the conclusion is already contained in the premises and the system justifies itself.

It then doesn't matter if you show them through A + B the unjust suffering that living beings can endure, the contradictions in their doctrine or their factual errors : everything is automatically justified by the idea that "God has His reasons and His reasons are God Himself," as if their cognitive wiring remained stuck in a sterile circular system.

And if science contradicts a belief, well, the belief will simply reject science. It's an entire system of anti-rational values that religion builds to brainwash people.

It's rare to see a believer present deductive reasoning of the "if, then, therefore" type to validate their arguments in a way that is clear, logical, and evident to everyone (admittedly, some philosophers have tried their hand at this exercise in the past, but so far none has withstood criticism).

Too often, they merely assert what they believe, and justify that assertion with other assertions, which they will in turn justify with yet other assertions, and so on, without ever submitting at any point to the rigor of facts or logical demonstration.

From then on, no fact, no reasoning, and no proof can ever call their belief into question again. If everything can be salvaged by a custom-tailored ad hoc justification, then nothing can be discussed anymore.

This poses a very serious problem of fairness between rationalists and believers, because a discussion involves a few implicit rules in order to function : intellectual honesty, a concern for consistency, a concern for the logical validity of reasoning, and a concern for facts.

If one of the two cheats, then the situation is no longer fair. And if it's no longer a fair discussion, then things risk turning into a power struggle.

And that also implies something much deeper than a mere disagreement : it implies a split with the other. A refusal to exist in the same world as them. Because how can we live together if dialogue is made impossible by dogmatic and authoritarian procedures that reject the very principle of what allows us to understand one another, namely rationality ?

How can we manage to discuss the world and come to an agreement if rationality is rejected for what it is ? How can we build a shared future if everyone goes their own way with their personal, unverifiable beliefs ?