Don't forget that most religions have edicts that contradict those of other religions or even forbid you to practice other religions. So to maximize your utility function you would need to exclude those. I seem to remember that yours is among those.

All "arguments" in your text are just stories. Not a single fact in sight. But the word fact is repeated ad nauseam. As if it is trying to summon facts from thin air by invoking the word often enough.

What is the harm in trying it with the flying spaghetti monster? That's one of the most funny arguments. As if the alternative to atheism is belief in your god. Like there aren't a million other ones to choose from. No thank you. If I ever cast my lot with a god, (which is very doubtful) I'll choose one that at least has a sense of humor.

Now you've made me waste half an hour and read the paper completely. I have never read the word fact so often in so short a text and with so little justification.

Yes, you are right, science doesn't work that way. That is because science can only tell you something about things that exist.

That's not evidence. It's fun stories.

I hope, you are a bit younger than me. I got my diagnosis last year and I'm close to fifty.

Me.