news

I mean I'll bite, but first I want to note that this isn't what you were saying before. Whether you find religions convincing isn't really the point here. "Faith without good reasons is a problem" is basically a non-statement; nobody believes in something for what they consider to be bad reasons, and there's really no way to objectively interrogate this (your own atheism would fail the scientific method). What you said is basically a tautology, on par with "stupidity is bad." Now with that over null

but the simple fact that I can believe anything with faith, makes it a bad tool for understanding the world.

Except most major belief systems don't argue that you should just have faith in them. There is usually an answer (convincing or not) to the question of "why should I believe in this thing instead of that thing."

Science is a better tool: independent people following science principles will come to the same conclusion. Religious thinking make it so that independent people come to different contradictory conclusions.

Except science only addresses very few of the questions religion seeks to answer ("why (not how) do we exist," "how did the world come into being," "what should we do with our lives" being common examples), and even then only tangentially so. Most of these are more the purview of philosophy, where independent people routinely come to contradictory conclusions. I also want to point out that science does rely on unfalsifiable assumptions that must be taken as a matter of faith—mainly that repeating the exact same experiment will always result in the same result. You can't actually prove or disprove this; it's just accepted due to its seeming ability to explain reality. In this way it's not very different from religious doctrines such as life as a test, divinity and karma.

I have yet to find a good reason to believe in god or gods from any religion.

Okay? That's not relevant to the topic. Like I said there are what some consider to be good reasons; whether you agree with that doesn't change anything.

They have access to the same “reasons” given as me.

Having access to something and understanding it are two different things. Your average Christian has as much access to the reasons provided by Buddhism as you do to the works of Immanuel Kant. Do you see the problem here? Assuming your average Christian has made an informed decision not to convert to Hinduism is like assuming you have consumed and understood the theories of Immanuel Kant. I'm similarly willing to bet you don't know anything about why Muslims believe in Islam. When exposed to these reasons, people can and do convert.

If religion people find other religions unconvincing, why should I be convinced by any of them?

You say "any" but really based on size alone you only have four realistic competitors here: Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and irreligion. These alone cover over 90% of people in the world. A four-way disagreement with a plethora of minor opinions isn't that hard to accept as the result of independent inquiry (whether it is the result of independent inquiry is irrelevant to this statement). I don't think this is any worse than, say, politics, where you have socialism, liberalism, fascism and all kinds of weird shit on the edges. By your logic, there's no reason to prefer fascism over liberalism or socialism. The answer to your rhetorical question is that it's possible for 75%-85% of people to be wrong on a subject (just consider your favorite political hot take).

PS: No part of what I said is an argument for religion per se; I'm just trying to say that religions, like any other idea, can't be dismissed out of hand based on the reasons you presented.