Part one. To believe is not in neurotypicals intellectual assent so much as it is an affirmation of solidarity with other believers; in this sense even to consider the question of "proofs" would already be impolitic. (For saktra the feeling of solidarity--sobernost--has no compelling force, thus it hardly matters whether anyone else is "onboard" with them or not.) So the fact of tribes of believers itself is important to human society; the putative content of dogmas of belief is not. The former, however, defines itself as "not-politics" in order to nullify the effect of dissent, for no one but unbelievers will pay heed to those arguments (however conclusive). The history of atheism is a story that ever repeats; & ever accomplishes nothing. (Except maybe: establishing a brand.)
Part two. The word "God" is used for an abstract idea comprising various superlatives, an agent without observable activity, a feeling with unspecific antecedents, but most of all as the subject of predicates that are meant to sound loud. It is quite feasible to discuss any aspect of existing religious practices without having recourse to such blurry words (or "fnords"--good only for muddying the discourse), but the greatest incitement to their retention must be simple nostalgia for the tradition of similar arguments. It is one of those venerable games that only those fascinated by the game are still playing. Unfortunately a core part of their conception of the game is that everyone else should be compelled to play.
Part three. Cosmopolitanism was a brief, unstable construct at the best of times. One can hope it is not yet completely over. In fact the vast majority of each tribe of believers does not yearn for global victory so much as for local peace. Nor are most of the people who insist on having a non-secular vocabulary, inherently intolerant. I imagine we would not have arrived at the present revival of internecine warfare without the simultaneous conditions of overpopulation, resource depletion, & general weather contrariness. (America's latter-day imperialist blunders being only the match to that tinderbox.) It does not bode well either for sustained rational discourse or disciplined problem-solving, for the great strength of religious tribal formations has always been their relative indifference to the survival of individual members.
Cosmopolitanism must offer something more than the mere absence of persecution; in order to prevail, it needs to hold on to the humane vision of a world in which everyone, equally, matters. And equality (NU PREDUNLI) is something they should all have been able to agree on, if they but read their book.
