Curious?

I don't think "you" understood "my" question marks. Sometimes I use them for emphasis. Sometimes I use them for cliches. Sometimes I use them to represent, more succinctly, a "non-reality" (For example "duality"). "Duality" is a "non-reality" because it is a "condition" of mind rather than mind in its totality. (As you may gather, "condition" isn't real, as "conditions" are an imposition on Real. Just as a "health condition" is an imposition on Health).
"I", "you" and "me" (or "my") aren't Real, because, in Reality, "you" and "I" are actually One in Totality. Not being One is merely a "condition" of mind due to some uneducated acceptance that the brains sensory perceptions are absolute for understanding.
Hope this helps.

I just wanted to say thank you Special Needs. Your comments are very well explained. I'm sorry but I am not nearly as concise.

I have to agree that religion is more like a made up disease the people are finally seeking the cure from. At one time, it was a comfort. For many, it is still perceived to be but deep down it really becomes a psychosis. Because the whole concept of religion is based purely on fantasy, it can't help but eventually raise doubts in the minds of believers at some point. If not create new ones. Especially when you examine the concept of failed attempts at getting your prayers answered. If your supreme being does not answer your prayers than you are left to worry over what in your life is wrong with you? That often leads you than to certain degrees of paranoia.

Not to mention the fact that you are to believe you are never alone is considered stalking in most Countries around the world. Sort of like Santa Claus. That wonderful marketing giant of a man. "He sees you when you're sleeping. He knows when you're awake. He knows if you've been bad or good so be good, for goodness sake." Again with the accepted concept that if you are caught doing something bad, maybe you won't get what you really wanted.

Of course, there is always the art of deception, right? If prayer and being good gets you nothing that you want, why not try deception? It worked for Lucifer right? Doesn't even Jesus claim that many will be seeking him and calling his name but he will claim that he never knew you? Of course he will do this after you die so you do not get a chance to ask for forgiveness or to make amends at this point in the game. No guarantees in religion. Just perceived ones that may in the end never come to fruition.

Well, at least when it comes to Santa Claus, if your caregiver or other concerned parties feel guilty or generous enough you may get that gift you always wanted. Even if you were sort of bad. The odds are that Santa delivers more than anything supernatural ever will. Of course with religion, we can stop in during working hours and it saves us any long distance trip to the North Pole. Yet, nothing in religion is really free. It is going to cost your soul, some of your free time and probably at least some cash if you want it to really pay off for you in getting a spouse, a new best friend or someone to just tell you how badly you are behaving and let Jesus do your suffering for you!

This could feed into the belief that nothing you do is ever really wrong. If you can find some deity to, "wash your sins away", than where does personal responsibility fit into this equation? We witnessed this problem within religions who hid their abusive staff, secretly counseling them, often without professional degree from accredited Colleges, only to continue to offend not only within their easy access Churches but practicing their abusive forms of love on unsuspecting neighbors and family members as well. Violating both the laws of humanity as well as the laws of their deities to do so.

Many people have temporarily walked away from their troubles after a good sermon only to find them sitting on their doorsteps, waiting for them to get home. It would have really been nice if religions really did have real life solutions for everything that ails us. Many of them have offshoots that actually do help people in trouble. Unfortunately, too many of these groups come with guilt strings attached and often grow somewhat resentful if you fail to give them the credit they feel is due to them. No matter how many laws they break while still doing good business.

"It is too bad that instead of providing concrete criticism of any of the points in this post you defer to unnamed authorities in Christian thought. let me hit your points in order."

we certianly can rehash all of those issues that have been widely dealt with if you wish but, it would be much easier if you would just study the responses made by the leading christian thinkers and respond to them. however, since that probably isn't going to happen, i'll do so in another post.

"I explicitly mention that science cannot prove or disprove God."

from what i can tell, the closest you get to actually stating this is when you say in reference to God that it is "An idea that cannot be proved or disproved". you don't mention science at all nor do you even make the distinction between the natural and the supernatural. in fact, in the statement i quoted, you state "Despite scientific facts...against the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient creator". it seems that these statements do not agree with your response here. you indeed say that science can disprove God.

"what does outclassed mean? Too bad you rely on pejorative labels and categories instead of discourse."

for some time now, christian philosophers have been getting the better of their non-theist counterparts. feel free to check out the debates between the leading thinkers. start with william lane craig. richard dawkins has been avoiding him with every elementary school excuse in the book. heck, dawkins won't even formally debate allister mcgrath. other who have tried, have not done so well. case in point, daniel dennet and mcgrath at the greer heard forum. there are several other examples we could discuss.

the philosophical arguments against God's existence you are probably referring to are not really taken seriously at these debates and you don't really hear them used much by atheist thinkers. instead, you see non-christians spending an inordinate amount of energy trying to break down the time-honored arguments for God's existence such as the ontological, cosmological, teleological, anthropological, etc. the most common arguments against God's existence are usually hell, evil/suffering, poor design and maybe a couple of others. these few have been dealt with many times over. feel free to examine the subjects yourself. you can find cursory treatments of them in philosophical foundations for a christian worldview by craig and moreland.

"how about naming a problem rather than falling prey to soundbites?

challenges that UCD faces are altruism, mimicry, predation, the cambrian explosion among others.

"you say that God "can certainly be proven to exist given an appropriate methodology". Do tell."

i've already mentioned the most common arguments for God's existence. these are logically formal, conclusive arguments. in that sense, they prove God's existence as much as logic, philosophy and metaphysical reasoning can prove anything.

"again, its too bad you don't address the points on suffering and instead defer to unnamed Christian thinkers who according to you, put this issue to rest. Did you know that this issue is still being debated in philosophical and theological circles? and that even in the Christian world, there is not a consensus?

there pretty much is a consensus among christian thinkers on why God has allowed suffering and it's called the freewill defense. notable people to read on the subject are j. p. moreland, william lane craig, francis schaeffer, ravi zacharias, among others.

If God is supernatural and exists beyond time then when He claims to have created the world and lists how he made everything then we have an explanation of Creation. You may agree with it or not but it is plausible if God existed, now take evolution for instance, the explanation has a huge flaw in the fact of matter coming from nothing and becoming something without a Creator. Big Bang, Aliens visiting earth billions of years ago, etc...all have another question mark attached to them unless you admit to intelligent design. Where did they come from, now personally I believe in God but if you don't then you have to answer the questions of, where did we come from. Science can't do that and Darwin's theory certainly can't. Hence, religion gives an answer rooted in faith that others mock but science not only can't answer the question but ask you to have faith in there incomplete theory, we should believe science just because it isn't God?

"Crucifixion"; To crucify oneself by one's own beliefs in order to rise again. "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you"; An understanding that each "attractive" other self is also your-self.

these are very intereting insights and i think there is some justification for them.

"Jesus died for our sins"; The only sin is ignorance of what we are in reality and so what we do (in this ignorance) is, in fact, already done."

the christian conception of sin ultimately is separation from God or the ultimate good. when we choose to walk apart from the highest moral standard, we have sinned. i'm not sure i would use the word ignorance because any person who doesn't have a mental handicap understands morality.

"My thing is that the noises "Jesus", "crucifiction", "Christ" and so on, are purely allegorical. Conventional "Christianity", in my view, contends that its symbols are somehow real historical events."

the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus are considered a historical fact by the academic community. you might be right that they didn't happen but, you would be going against the overwhelming historical consensus. furthermore, there is very good evidence for the resurrection of christ. good authors to read on the subject are william lane craig, gary habermas and n. t. wright.