Of course people’s opinions and beliefs can change. You just can’t decide to change them. You can obviously e.g. decide to learn more about a subject and as a result of that action your beliefs change but you can not just decide to change what you believe any more than you could decide to grow taller or to have your fingers fall off.

But what you believe isn’t a choice. You can not consciously choose to believe anything, you can only be convinced to believe or convinced, coerced, forced,… to pretend to believe but your actual belief is not under your conscious control.

There were probably some con-men among them too.

Christianity in its core values is good

It really isn’t. It just has some values that people who like to see it as good pick to describe as core values but other people pick very hateful ones as its core values from the actual pool of very mixed values it contains.

Even the earliest writers in the bible wrote about him only decades after his supposed death. Outside the bible the earliest is Josephus 50 years after his death and it is a single sentence which doesn’t quite fit in with its surroundings so it might have been inserted later. Usually you would not consider that convincing evidence of a historical person.

It is apparently deeply offensive to tell huge assholes that they could potentially be slightly less giant assholes to their loved ones?

Don’t forget the various US political religions like Founding Fatherism and Trumpism.

however, they reject the idea that science can explain everything.

I am an anti-theist and I reject that idea too, doesn’t mean I think religion can explain anything though. In fact I would go so far as to consider that deliberately obscure phrasing in the poll.

There are so many to choose from, which one is the worst is very hard to determine. From completely insane nonsense like the ontological argument to those that just ignore that they would apply to every other religion equally like Pascal’s Wager there is a lot of competition.

I guess that is bound to happen when all arguments are far from good, they have to cluster around the ‘bad to worst’ part of the spectrum.

And why wouldn’t it be, it is literally one of the oldest issues with religion that was formulated by Epicurus roughly 2300 years ago and believers have never had a satisfactory answer to it.

And some religious people might think they are harming nobody with their beliefs but them arguing with faith-based arguments for harmless stuff and counting as members of a church allows others to argue with faith-based arguments for more harmful stuff and to claim that they have x church members behind them.

If absolutely any theist I know tells me that it is okay to murder an innocent child because their parents belong to a region that treated your people badly, and because someone said that God said to,

Obviously the child wouldn’t be innocent in that case /s

The whole redemption thing itself doesn’t even make sense unless you buy into inherited guilt and into sacrificing another to absolve yourself from guilt which are both rather outdated concepts in our modern morality.

What is wrong with a heterogenous hive-mind god as a concept?

Agnosticism is not some sort of ‘weak atheism’, it is a completely independent thing, you can have gnostic theists, gnostic atheists, agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. It just means that you believe something can be known about the existence of god vs. you believe nothing can be known about it.

How can we forget. Ever since the waiter has been serving the son’s blood and meat.