I'm not religious either, but a better analogy for a believer would be telling someone to pray or sacrifice a goat to stave off scurvy.

If you really believed some nonsense, sure you'd want to not keep it to yourself, and to tell others how to live. But that wouldn't actually be a good thing, despite the believer believing it was.

I believe a better analogy would be telling someone to put on some leeches to stave off the Black Death.

No, a better on would be "dont drink from that well or you'll get dysentery" before anyone knew of the microbiology.

You twice used examples where a "believer" has (at least observational) evidence to support that belief.

Some of organized religion has roots in that (some of the Jewish dietary laws have practical basis), but much of the prescriptions of organized religion is preference-based rather than evidence-based.

Observational evidence nobody else believed.

That still makes it testable in a way purely faith-based restrictions are not.

"to the believer"

I know it's tough, but try and picture from someone's else perspective.

Now try picturing it from the someone else’s perspective who isn’t a believer.

No, that's not a good analogy.

There is evidence for eating limes to stave off scurvy.

This is why you're so upset, you didn't even read what I wrote.

> This is why you're so upset

On the contrary, I'm not upset at all, do you claim to be able to read minds?

> you didn't even read what I wrote.

I actually did, and responded to it. Your analogy is a bad one.

No, you didn't read my comment or you would have noticed I said "a good analogy for a believer".

Not everyone views the world the way you do, so you shouldn't judge their actions or motives based on your world view.