Are your quibbles and dubious arguments by assertion supposed to engage with the logic of this article’s argument? To know what that argument is, you need to learn how to comprehend what you’re reading.

So you must have missed this part: “Perhaps this analysis of the variety of religions is flawed; certainly, it’s simplistic. Nevertheless, there’s bound to be _some_ such account of the historical evolution of religions, and of how different conceptions of divinity were socially applied. There are, then, two explanations of this kind of narrative, one that upholds the religious enterprise and one that deflates theologies and rejects religions as wrongheaded.”

And I argue that the deflationary explanation is more likely. So that’s the logic here which doesn’t depend on the historical details that I left out of this article. The article’s analysis of the types of religion is used only as an illustration. The more historical details you fill in, the less plausible the religious claims seem to be because we could see more clearly how the religions served social and political functions.

Your jealous-sounding personal attacks are unseemly, coming from someone who’s allegedly interested in spiritual enlightenment.