The author does not explain the basis of the statement that his made-up religion would be better than existing religions. Is he asserting that his made-up religion would be more pristine than those that have come down through history merely because of its newness? And why does he find flaw with religions' lack of basis in fact if, in the end, they improve life for their adherents? Religion is not about facts; it's about the end results of the myths and rituals it sustains. We live in a world of myth, despite modern fantasies about science explaining the universe and all its mysteries; religion is but a part of the world of myth and of "good enough" explanations for unknown (and perhaps unknowable) mysteries. I'm not claiming vile acts have not taken place in the name of religion; I'm claiming that the good acts religion impels outnumber those, and because the facts of life after death and other matters typically left to religion are unknowable, the factual basis of any religion is irrelevant.