Atheism has gifted me with an unadulterated appreciation of the value of not only my life, but also lives of others.

Chronology is to Time as Religion is to God:
If you ask someone what time is, they will look at their watch confident that they know what time is.

In reality, our species does not fully understand time yet. So, we invented a concept called Chronology.

But Chronology is not time. Time is a much more complex concept.

We have done the similar thing with religion. Many people know, and some are even experts in religion. No one now, or that ever lived, can state to my satisfaction that they understand God, and can speak with any authority on the subject.

Why would God use a "book", and for that matter, "a very specific book" in a specific language, to relate rules and to set forth behavioral norms?

I can understand why Humans would use a book; After all, we are only humans.

I can understand why an ethnic group would arrogantly claim that their language is the chosen language of their deity. Ever see the painting of Jesus with blue eyes and red hair in an Irish Catholic church? There is a similar mental process going with both.

Language, especially a 7th century one, is itself a flawed method of communication. As we evolve, new concepts, and discoveries make older languages less contextual so the language naturally adapts.

But, when a language evolves, what was once a relative point, or concept in written text can become obsolete. This happens with reference materials used in science constantly, why does this not apply to religious references?

Books have a major flaw, in that a book does not have to be based on reality. In fact, most books are not based on reality.
"The Wizard of OZ" was a great book that illustrated the struggle between good and evil from the perspective of an adolescent child. But, there is no Wizard, or a place called OZ.

I do not know of any books other than religious books; where people make claims to the books divinity and perfection, where at the same time accuse each other of gross misinterpretations.

Some people can read a book, and it is a crystal clear directive to strap on an explosive and kill themselves along with as many strangers as possible. All this while another person, from the same culture, speaking the same language, can read identical passages, and interpret the same text, and decide that it is an spiritual guide and aid to quit smoking.

You cannot make claims of divinity and at the same time have such gross susceptibility for misinterpretation. I would argue that this paradox disqualifies religious materials as being from a divine source.

The Scientist and the Microscope:
I think an analogy of religion is like this. It is like a Scientist looking at an Amoeba though a microscope.

The problem is that we are the Amoebae not the Scientist!

This perspective places us at a great disadvantage. Even if we are the smartest Amoeba under the slide, at best when we look up, we can only see a big huge eyeball.

Qualifying Deities, and Prophets:
I place a high threshold before I will accept someone, or something as a deity.

In the case of Islam, Muslims have turned Mohammed into a deity, although, ironically, he specifically warned his followers not to do that.

People killing other people because in their mind a cartoon insulted their deity as an example.

Mohammed was a slave owner. Additionally, he profited from the transportation, and sale of human beings. Normalized to 7th century, slavery was common.

However, as our species evolved and socially matured, the concept of slavery became immoral.

I cannot imagine anything that "disqualifies" someone as a prophet, as to have been so integrally involved in the institution of slavery. After all, what Muslims are saying is that Mohammed is not only a prophet, but also that last prophet. This is absurd; at best I would say that we need a new fresh prophet. I elect George Carlin, can we take a vote?