It seems that people like us, typoholic nerd people, have more or less hijacked most religions.

Here we are, in public, typing typing typing, pushing our messages out in to the world. We like assertions, abstractions, philosophy, debate and conflict. People like us are visible, because we're articulate and often publish books, build websites, give sermons and so on.

And then there are the people like my wife, who are way too busy walking the walk to have time for the talking of the talk. And even if they wanted to talk, which they typically don't, maybe they aren't that good at it.

And so when onlookers observe religion what they typically see are people like us, the talkers, while the walkers tend to remain largely invisible.

A question which might help clarify how to proceed on such topics might be...

What is the primary purpose of religion? Is it to establish facts about reality? Or is it to help manage our relationship with reality?

I propose our relationship with reality is the real purpose, and a significant source of confusion is that religions often propose facts about reality as a way of helping followers manage their relationship with reality. You know, if you believe you are going to heaven that makes the tribulations of living easier to stomach.

This facts=>relationship equation would seem to confuse most people in to thinking that religion is really about proposing the very largest of facts, thus making it a competitor to science. The problem here is that religion is never going to be able to compete successfully with science in establishing facts. Facts arising from science often lead to tangible items such as computers, which people can see with their own eyes. The avalanche of such products builds the credibility of science with every passing day.

If the real purpose of religion is to manage our relationship with reality, that might raise the question of whether there are better ways to manage that relationship than selling facts which can never be proven, thus alienating large numbers of people.

A good example from the heart of Catholicism are the teachings from Jesus about love. While the God part of the teaching will remain forever hypothetical, the experience of love can be tested in one's own day to day life. Unlike the ideological assertions of Catholicism (which Catholics can not agree on even among themselves), the experience of love is truly universal, accessible to all human beings in all times and places.

First, I continue to find it fascinating how much of Christian theology is actually built upon the foundational premise of atheism, the notion that the rules of human reason are universally binding, and thus a useful guide for an analysis of the existence or non-existence of gods. It doesn't seem to bother anyone on any side that this assumption has never been proven, and is in fact a highly questionable claim on it's face given how incredibly small human beings are in comparison to the scope of issues addressed by god claims and counter claims.

I'm come to conclude from observing this seemingly almost universal sloppy reasoning that our real loyalty is not to a God inquiry, but rather to the methodology of philosophy. As example, if it could be proven beyond any doubt that the most effective method of conducting a God inquiry was playing golf, how many of us would trade in this site for some golf clubs? Probably none of us.

If we are to accept the primacy of reason in such endeavors, endless debates about the existence of God don't seem very rational, whatever one's point of view. It seems reasonable to question whether in the entire history of this site a single person's fundamental view has been changed. Again we see an impractical bias for methodology over any tangible real world result.

Next, one wonders if anyone here has heard about love. I believe that might have been mentioned somewhere in the New Testament. Love seems a topic which can be usefully addressed by every human being, whatever their perspective on God might be. That subject could be a meeting ground arena which takes us past the endlessly predictable nerd ego gotcha game, but, well, who cares I guess.

What is obvious is that two different criteria are being used. I could easily argue that Santa is not inconsistent WITH ITSELF, by (re)defining him as such. I could also easily argue that this god is inconsistent WITH REALITY, much like Santa.

Well, it seems to me that @dennisbonnette:disqus has gone to great lengths to try to explain A–T philosophy and would welcome the opportunity to get better at it. Complaining that the best place you know of doesn't come anywhere close to your high standards opens up the possibility that the problem is with your standards or you. (I find A–T difficult myself, but I am not willing to say that the fault lies anywhere but in myself.)

Hmmm, I'm not sure I was ever afforded that leeway by the other side (from my perspective: atheists).

Note that I described it as the closest to a good counter example. Implying that it is indeed not a good counter example.

It's okay to be a bit sloppy when you're making flippant jab at people.

You mean this:

Perturbation theory is applicable if the problem at hand cannot be solved exactly, but can be formulated by adding a "small" term to the mathematical description of the exactly solvable problem. (WP: Perturbation theory)

? I guess I need an equivalent of '⋘' or '⋙' for '≠'. The point would be to indicate ¬'small'.