Religion is always beaten by faith

I had a visit from two Witnesses of religion. I told them I was of Pagan Faith, tolerant of other beliefs be it Muslim Quaker Catholic Jewish etc though had conviction to my own. It did not deter them and they invited me to engage in conversation, so I did. For when asked to opine upon a subject, I feel my duty to respond with honesty and confidence, for communication is the way forward to an understanding of others tenets, values and philosophies.
We began in an amicable manner and bantered on several topics. I’m not a believer in religion myself, but an advocate instead of faith, a credo I had a kinship to throughout my life. I felt that it was the main cause of wars, and many heads of such organisations were out of touch with those that they called brethren, and as I told the main spokesman, there seemed to be more excuses than explanations given upon questioning of such.
He referred to the changes to the planet, saying many thought it was Gods revenge though his alternative view was that God is there to help and; for those who adhered to his word, would be saved. I said that sounded too much like a deal based on fear and; as some may say intimidation.
He continued to say there is good news to tell, I agreed citing the little orange dingy that bobbed up and down before huge whaling ships in defence of a creature to be protected and not used and abused by consumer requirement. Putting their life on the line; literally, for the cause, he responded by saying yes, but the real good is out there being done by the grace of God by numerous disciples of the word that he and others like him preached – I said though I believed in his sincerity it was not mine!
He added, if you had good news to tell would you not want it to be told? I replied yes but by education and example, not demand and directory command = a horse to water scenario. He used the example of knowing a cure for Cancer, I said that maybe there was a cure for this and several other illnesses, though whilst there is an opportunity for corporate profit then the release of such seems to be ‘after due consideration’.
He continued, stating all the answers to our questions lay within the book he carried, and only those who adhered to its philosophy would be worthy to be saved. At this point I reacted with greater criticism.
He said in his book that his saviour spread the word to the furthest part of distant lands – I queried this as the ‘known world’ did not stretch to areas such as that which lay across the Atlantic, he added yes but it was to be those lands not yet known – at this I said I was quite sceptical.
I cited the Native Americans; who like the faith of my own, had an infinity to the elements, holding the environment and nature’s beauty with respect – both of witch, were hunted down to the brink of genocide by so called civilisations under the leadership of corporate materialism and indeed an excuse of religious guidance.
I pointed out with translation and interpretation things could have an element if not an absolute fact of reference.
The destruction of chariots in deadly pursuit engulfed in deluge and watery grave is quite possible to accept if, one thinks of the marshes (REED) where peoples could carefully cross, yet heavy artillery not in an area near to the RED Sea – maybe it was divine intervention, maybe it was creative invention, I mused – he looked confused.
I questioned why only one (son) was the ‘chosen one’ in one land to be the messenger of all truth, he replied yes and he was killed, I answered well one messenger was, not the message – just like the messages of other religions!
I queried the contradictions therein i.e. is it an 'eye for an eye', or 'turn the other cheek'? He had no creditable response
I asked why there was no mention of a Mrs God. We had previously agreed that man alone could not create life and that male and female of the species (science precluded) could create a life natural. He had no response, just to say that God was an entity of mixed gender though to the question, why always in the male form? – he had no answer.
Indeed, why was no prominence given to any female role models, within the main teachings (i.e. secondary mention only)?
He could not answer. I pointed out that any Bible / Book of doctrine that was felt to be the LAW was faulty, He said "it is the law - of God" at this I saw the other closing his eyes.
I ended by saying, “are you convinced that this book is 100% correct in its teachings, despite the length of time it took to write, and its several translations/interpretations by many of different age and perceptions, and there is no other god”? – He replied "Yes". I said "OK, if that is your belief, good for you, but it's not mine, Goodbye, Good luck and may your God go with you" We parted such
I’m always receptive to the thoughts of others, though not when there are those that either will not, or perhaps can, not do so a constructive and similarly accepting way. I don’t get why some people can’t accept differences of credo whilst living a life by example and action and not feel the need to preach. Opine yes, but not dictatorship. It seems to me that an adherence by blinkered and controlling of any religion with blind obedience is not a comfort I care for.
I embrace a way of life that is encouraging, nurturing and with inspiration gives comfort. It works for me and such choice shows why Religion is always beaten by faith