I'm bored, and I have nothing else to do till monday, might as well do something to pool my insect-like thoughts together.
No matter, what your religion is, it’s safe to assume that they're all based off of story books written during the early times of humanity's 'cultural self-awakening' (or maybe they're only a few hundred years old, maybe even 50), the main point being that all doctrine can be taken from this fiction books.
Wherever and whenever you grew up will determine what religion you were automatically assigned. I don’t know what the main religion of the US is, aside from the blanket term 'christian' (christianity is a media label for Abrahamic based religions who believe in jesus), but you'll probably be catholic, evangelical, baptist, whatever. Same if you went to the Middle East, where you will probably be sikh or muslim (here's a bad joke: The weather in England is like a muslim: it’s either Sunni or Shiite), and also if you went to Asia, where there's Buddhism, Taoism etc. (So its just down to luck where you're born).
This means that you have been/may have been raised in an environment that surrounds you in your religion.
The human mind is difficult to convince: Young children, not so much. It's easier to progressively tell and explain someone the same thing over and over with conviction rather than outright forcing them to accept A or B. This makes religion deep rooted and 'personal' to an individual, who won’t throw away years of processed information because one person says something they disagree with.
Religion is its own category: It’s a thinking process, belief system, moral system and fashion accessory all at the same time.
The thinking process is based on one of conflicting ideals must be put into either/or, one or the other, the false dichotomy of its either this or it’s that, and whatever is told to me to be right is only right if it comes from the source book where I get my faith from. This choice system comes from believing that actions are decided by all powerful deities rather than the will of the person making the decision, and if not that, then by the deities 'guiding' someone to make the right choice (due to no one knowing what 'deities' actually want or what their purpose is, this is basically, again, dumb luck).
The belief system is obvious: whatever the book tells you, that’s what you believe, and as pretty much every 'holy scripture' piece is 'the infallible word of something or other', then you DO believe all of it, or you believe NONE of it (as is the way when it comes to thinking like a religious person) and interpretation is not justifiable, as many modern religious followers simply pick and choose what to believe in, which is unacceptable to the core basis of their religion.
'I believe in a snake telling a naked lady to eat an apple, but not the approval of slavery and genocide, no no no' (the bible teaches that all these things are correct and appropriate for god).
The moral system is hit and miss: Most religions were based on one tribe finding something to make the other tribe be absorbed into their tribe, essentially making the whole tribe stronger (common ground and all that) while also sparking fear in other tribes due to the now bigger tribes increased manpower. Some are geared more towards personal than communal morals: Buddhism is by far the most pacifist and philosophical major religion, teaching towards self-improvement over group compromise ('I'll better myself rather than making you moving down equally to my level') and is probably closer to a perpetual self-help program that feeds off anxiety.
As a fashion accessory: If you're a US presidential candidate, you have to be 'christian'. The most famous scientologists are all actors and actresses. Bible verses are often used as tattoos. Showing off your faith to others of your faith will increase your rep with those also of your faith, much in the same way as if your new hairstyle makes you look cool.
If a deity of a religion is 'all knowing yet incomprehensible', where does one begin and the other end, if you BELIEVE that you've been told by your chosen (or forcibly chosen) deity some knowledge that is easily understandable and completely in line with the scenario you asked knowledge of/for, then it can be easily explained by saying that only YOU would know what you have been told by your deity, which is always what you knew before asking a 'divine being', therefore this should lead you to think that your deity of choice is none other than you telling yourself what to think and do, but within the guidelines of what you've been taught from your holy book.
This is the distinction between a religious person who is 'a rational member of the society' and someone who has schizophrenia: One of them can choose to have voices in their head, the other cannot (so a religiously motivated crime should be judged entirely as if the individual committing it is sane, as they have the ability to ignore their motivational delusion very easily, yet choose not to).
This explanation of the origins of god is based off of Darkmatter2525's video 'The Real God: An Epiphany':
'When someone is rejected, they feel despair and frustration. Typically, they'll feel resentment and anger against that person, the resulting chemical imbalance and overload of dopamine and cortisol in the rejected's brain even causes physical pain. Short term effects are aggressiveness and anti-social behaviour.'
'Person A is a theist and Person B is an atheist. They are having an argument over the existence of god. Any part of the argument can cause Person A to experience despair ('I feel sorry for you, I'll pray for you') and frustration ('Why do you care? Just let people believe what they want to believe'). Typically they'll also feel resentment ('You have no morals') and anger ('You're going to burn in hell!'). They may even exhibit aggressiveness (Death threats, discrimination), and anti-social behaviour (shunned, blocked, 'Dont call me again', avoidance'). The parallel is even clearer when a theist describes the atheist as 'rejecting' god.'
This draws a very very noticable parallel between the two states of being, but what does this actually mean?
'Person A (theist) wants to set up a blind date for Person B (atheist) with Person C (god). Person B doesn't even think that Person A knows Person C, or that Person A is the liaison or agent for Person C. Did Person B reject Person C? No. What if Person B doesn't even believe that Person C exists? Maybe Person A described them as too perfect, without flaws. Even if Person C does exist, were they rejected by person B? No. All Person C would need to do is show up and Person B would have no reason to doubt.'
'In all accounts, Person B is not rejecting Person C, yet Person A would not feel rejected if Person B didn't go through with the date.'
'So why does Person A feel rejected and yes the word rejection when encountering atheists?'
Because Person A is Person C. The believer is their own god. Person C wouldn't have felt rejected unless they were in the room, however Person A DOES feel rejected, or shows the signs of rejection. 'god' comes from your ego, your desire to think above yourself and understand your state of life. This is why 'god' tells you things you already know, why the options you have in a decision are the choices you knew all along. This is why you can agree with 'god' on every level. This is also why many modern religious people to not adhere to their chosen scripture: I already know god, I do not need a book to tell my what I already know. Yet this is the excuse that people can give themselves to perpetuate their own faith when it comes to criticism.
Its no hidden fact that, overall, people with a lower IQ have a tendency to be more religious (IQ is NOT JUST a measure of intelligence, but of mental processing and understanding). This isn't an attempt at pissing people off, its just true. That doesn't mean that anyone else who's not religious is more intelligent, but this graph at least supports the first point:
Of course, IQ is not a perfect way of showing someone's capabilites as a person, but its just an interesting factor to put in there.
Although Mitt Romney is pretty stupid.
Going back to the rejection explanation, it can also be understood why people wish to preach their faith openly, rather than let it stay as their own business. Humans are highly social beings, we cant go anywhere without seeing ourselves in each other, we have a base urge to be together, as it were. When someone is very openly preaching their faith, it explains the strength of their character: A more weak willed person will stand up in the bus and start ranting, and the priest will stand over his congregation so his voice is loudest, but both are essentially the same thing. A more mind/body centric religion, such as Buddhism or Taoism, where the body and mind are perceived as one, shows a stronger strength of character, as the followers accept their state of being and work with themselves to improve their understanding rather then outright refusing to understand and to just go along with whatever they've been told.. as is the way with abrahamic religions. This is of course, a generalisation: Not everyone is accountable for falling into one category or the other, but it is most telling of the majority of both parties.
This stems from a personal feeling of being aware that you are lonely.
Other people who do not believe in god wont be able to share god's company, but as we found out, religious people are their own 'gods', so the REAL desire is of one to be accepted and comforted by others but within their own minds, something that is currently impossible to achieve, and so the preachers will continue to preach, until they understand that their mind is forever lonely while their body is surrounded by other bodies with unreachable minds.