Apparently you are willing to define "something" rather more narrowly than I define it, then you reject "it" however you define "it." Fine with me, but that's not my way. I live with ambiguity hoping for clarity, not imposing it from my need for order but rather, of its own accord in its own time.
No big deal.
Neither of those statements about me is true. I think that anything worth believing, is worth being tested. If it stands the test of honest intellectual scrutiny, you can put your full conviction into it. If it doesn't, you can toss it to the curb with full conviction.
What I don't understand is people who bristle and bow up at the first insinuation that they have no idea what they believe. That's the plainest symptom of any that, in fact, they don't know what they believe. They only "know" what they've been told to think, and why they've been told to think it (presumably something more substantive than "BECAUSE" would be required, but not much more than "OR ELSE YOU'LL GO TO HELL" it wouldn't appear).
A person who has scrutinized and tested their beliefs and not found them wanting will have enough confidence in those beliefs not to be offended by those who would question them. They would have answers, and probably be interested in sharing them.
Rather, what we see evidenced by the OP and it's cosignatories, is the evidence of ignorance. When someone is told to believe something DEEPLY usually from a young age, and is emotionally invested in that belief with their entire being, it's pretty rigid. They cannot stand having those beliefs questioned, because they have NO IDEA why they believe what they do.
The same is true if someone develops a belief, then actively searches out information in SUPPORT of those beliefs. This is fallacious, obviously. It's circular reasoning - a true example of begging the question if ever there was one. "God exists, because the Bible says so, and it was written by God."
Religion is a fun topic to discuss, only because people who hold their beliefs deeply almost never are able to substantiate them without invoking any number of fallacious arguments. Which is why I recently included links to collections and descriptions of logical fallacies in my signature recently.
Religion is a gigantic mindfuck designed to imbue the ignorant with a sense of superiority, in exchange for which they are to sacrifice their money and substitute their own free will and judgement for that of the religious leadership. It is a play for money and power, plain and simple. If a devil exists, religion is his tool. Anything good that comes from it is an accident, and speaks to the inherent good nature in people - which is being preyed upon, and has been preyed upon for ages and ages. As far back as Jesus, and before I'm sure.
Now, let me pose this question to you. If you're an individual who holds a deep religious belief, and you encounter someone who makes the previous argument to you, what's the worst that could happen if I'm wrong?
If I'm wrong, and you genuinely challenge each of your beliefs, you will emerge with a deeper and stronger understanding of those beliefs and your faith will be stronger for it.
But if I'm right...you genuinely challenge each of your beliefs, find them to be completely opposite of what you had thought all these years - what do you do?
No wonder people favor ignorance over enlightenment...ignorance is a lot easier.