Controversial but necessary question.
Lets face the facts. While we might have problems with the Abrahamic holy books and God as potrayed in them and all the gruesome incidents present within. Does that necessarily make God as a concept unacceptable?
Is God really the problem? Or is it people who act in the name of God problematically a problem?
The Abrahamic holy books record the events that took place in the deserts - the history revolved around the Semitic groups. All the tales written are their own accounts. All the laws their own.
You're doing ok up to this point.
It makes 100% sense for women to veil themselves in a climate/lanscape like that of an Arabian desert with sandstorms. So from their perspective a full veil is only taking it to the next step. And since they are so used to covering themselves their idea of modesty will not tally with that of tribesmen from New Guinea.
To call yourself a naturalist but to take shots at human behaviour that stem naturally due to evolutionary pressure is hilarious, ridiculous and stupid as fuck.
You fucked up here. If veiling makes practical sense for female humans in a particular climate, it will make just as much practical sense for human males.
And why pretend like as if the concept of God is completely irrational? The attributes of God are benign and beyond that of anything else.
Are they? Really? Given that supposedly God is in charge of everything, that would include tsunamis, earthquakes (yes, I know they're related), disease epidemics, etc, etc, etc. Very benign, is it not?
This is where, in my opinion, some of the older and more violent pagan religions had a more realistic concept of their gods. In those religions, the gods were frequently cruel and capricious, which is much more in accord with real occurrences if you are going to assume said occurrences are the responsibility of one or more deities.
Is it that suprising to find that naturally people would show reverence to such a being?
It's not surprising that they would be scared shitless of such beings, if they believed in their existence. This is most likely why religions put such stock in fear (and they all do, to a greater or lesser extent).
It also explains the origins of prayer, which is basically grovelling and begging to a capricious being in the hope that it will be nice to you. Religions rely on the assumption that such beings will take notice of your pleading. Why they should do this is another matter.
To say that something is only valid if you can see it and touch is what that is truly unreasonable. You can say such a thing does not meet your standards of verifiable existence therefore you are not willing to consider it is acceptable and honest. But to enforce that on the religious is no different from the adamance of the religious themselves. To demand that the religious ought to examine things in light of science is acceptable but to claim that science reigns supreme is absurd.
And Im not supporting evangelicalism here and all superstitions that go along with religion.
It's not just a matter of seeing and touching. It's a matter of evidence. Any evidence will do, as long as it's verifiable. For instance, we cannot see and touch ultraviolet light but we have evidence that it exists.
There is no such evidence for any deity. Ergo, there is no obligation to assume that a deity exists.
Topic: Is it Monotheism or Semitism that is the problem?