That’s where people get misled because upon which believers does one determine the truth? If one looks at the good believers then the religion is good but if at the not so good ones then the religion is wrong?
One must look at the entire spectrum of believers and unbelievers to understand how faith affects people, and to evaluate which systems get the best results.
The standard being set is what should be looked at. For example, Islam is a religion of peace. The Quran teaches to return love for hate. Yet if one base one’s views of Islam upon extremists one will have a distorted view of it. It’s true the followers should be setting the example but if they do not then it is not the fault of the religion but disobedience to it which is the problem.
I understand that first sentence to mean one evaluates a religion by looking at its words. And the last sentence is typical of Abrahamic theism to blame the individual rather than failings of the religion to reach them. To me, the frequency of the failures is as relevant as the frequency of successes.
The part of religions which support and confirm each other are the spiritual teachings which teach things like the virtues and having an upright character. It is only the social teachings traditions and customs which are different according to the age in which the religion appeared.
The parts of religions that support one another are the parts that mean nothing specific - the airy stuff called spiritual, which boils down to there is a god who says to be good and be nice. That's not religion except for throwing in the god part, which can be omitted without loss of meaning.
The more you and others attack such beautiful teachings the more lucky I realise I am and the more ignorant I realise critical thinkers are to be attacking the author of such beautiful Writings and Teachings. If critical thinking can’t see the truth in these Words then it is completely and utterly useless and worthless.
Critical thinking is what saved me from religion (and being an anti-vaxxer and falling for election hoax lies). Critical thinking is what led me to humanism. You consider yourself fortunate. I consider that skill - critical thinking - the most valuable cognitive skill one can acquire. It's what lets me see the words you cite in a way you do not, and why I do not value them.
Atheism I personally believe to be wilful emotional, mental and spiritual blindness bases upon a form of egoism which worships the self. Which insists that the self is all there is and is always right. Baha’is are wary of the self and only fully trust God.
Here's a classic Abrahamic sentiment regarding skepticism. It interprets independence from the shackles of Abrahamic religions and a moral failing akin to narcissism. It's a pretty simplistic and obviously self-serving sentiment. I've asked you before what you think your religion has to offer a humanist, and got no reply. Humanism has something to offer you. There is no bigotry there. Nobody is considered damaged or defective because a man said a god told him so.
Also, humanism offers reason and critical thought in place of faith, and the chance to live an authentic life as an autonomous moral agent in place of ancient received moral codes - you know, the part Abrahamists refer to as rebellion or arrogance or wanting supplant God with oneself - all code for did not submit. Your use of the word willful above is correct and illuminating. The exercise of free will is sin. Submission is virtue.
Is it surprising that belief systems that require obedience praise it as a virtue and independence of thought as a vice (sin)? No more so than that systems that can only be believed by faith declare faith a virtue and critical thought the devil trying to distract one. Humanism is the rejection of that, and it has improved the human condition with its fruits, which include science and the modern liberal democratic state with guaranteed individual rights. In the Middle Ages, people were subjects with few rights. Humanism converted them into autonomous citizens, and one can still hear kings and priests howling from the past, neither having much use for independent thinking people.
But other than that, like you say, critical thinking has been "utterly useless and worthless."
