Not that such things are not usually civil when it crops up around here but nice one to see it still happening.
Anyway I would probably be a scientist to the core and though it does preclude belief it nearly all but guarantees its absence.
I have read basically every religious book (though in English or French as some seem to think that matters), many of the minor ones and other major works of analysis of said books or other major related works (dead sea scrolls -- not a religious book in an of themselves, worth reading/reading about anyway). Fascinating things but not things I can fully commit to a philosophy from, I might be able to draw from such a thing but as most are usually a bundling of hot desert survival (pork really does not keep well, especially not without a fridge in a hot desert) and the notion of be excellent to each other then eh. It also seems a bit lazy to take a philosophy from one but laziness is fine by me and not everybody is fortunate enough to be able to sit around contemplating philosophy anyway. If I can then draw philosophy from anywhere then "I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein or Superman" is a good one to ask why should I believe in the Abrahamic deity, the one that usually gets capitalised in English as God? There are infinite deities to choose from (and if not then I just made a deity creating algorithm so there are now infinite ones) so why that one?
Likewise I enjoy the study of the sociology and economics of religion -- things like how polytheism gave way to singular deity approaches as polytheism would have split people rather than provide a unified front. Also things like the Jizya tax; historically various Islamic states or empires before them occasionally had a tax for people of other religions, a surprising amount of people converted. Speaking of taxes a lot of the tax free stuff I see has reached piss take levels -- religious buildings/places/cemeteries are often worth visiting if you are somewhere, I visited some in the US and it was a leisure centre in all but name. To that end I would be OK with curbing a lot of that.
I do also have to point out that for many purposes the notion of "Christian" as a general descriptor is a relatively new concept, possibly one invented or at least brought to the fore by politicians in the last 100 years -- it is very neutral and non threatening but at the same time conveying something "good". To that end I am distrustful for the term, or consider it a non term until someone has defined it for a given situation.
Too much nonsense has been done in names of things as well so time for a reboot if you would wish for me to consider things.
I am happy enough to live and let live -- are you harming me or someone else, no? We are good then. That said that is hard for some to manage -- don't like abortions, don't have one and try to argue that followers of your philosophy should not have one, can't accept the evidence for evolution, OK but I am not sure what there is to do about it, don't like gay people getting married, don't marry one then and try to argue... If you can make an argument of economics (historically marriage was used to promote population growth), some kind of legal basis, possibly some kind of ethical basis (legality and ethics are intertwined but are not necessarily the same thing) and in any of those cases have it all trump what could otherwise be said to be a personal freedom then go for it. Or if you prefer then tell me why your book should change what I do.
I suppose we now get to the controversial stuff. Teaching kids a religion. Variously widely held ideas of human rights do hold that being able to teach your kids your philosophy is a human right and given some of the abuses in history (see treatments of various natives in things like "education camps" for a good example, though they are far from the only ones) I can see why that might a good plan for the law. That said developmental psychology would hold there is serious truth in the old "get them to me young enough and the possibilities are considerable" adage. To that end I am not sure I could argue for a repeal of the law/human rights concepts but I will find some of the things done under their shield to be horribly distasteful. To that end I think I will end with how others start (I was raised...) and quote another song lyric -- I Started Out with Nothin and I Still Got Most of It Left, or if I may appropriate a phrase often associated with religion then I came into this world with nothing and with nothing I depart*.
*actually that is bad as it is theoretically possible that a religion could be proven, not to mention it could be that I was
a Catholic the moment dad came.
