Shockadelic
It sounds like you might be close to a position espoused by David Eagleman

"Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."
http://www.possibilian.com/

Shocky is soooooooo offended by the fact that no supernatural life exists, that he's now resorting to name calling. When the believers can't win the debate, they almost always then resort to name calling.

SPOR, the logic in the words you quoted is actually false logic. Why? because it "creates" an intellectual environment where absolutely everything that doesn't exist MUST be considered as "possibly" existing.

Using the same logic it can therefore be argued that floating, invisible, supernatural pink fairies "may indeed" inhabit your garden.

This type of false logic enables religious believers to easily defend their religious belief in the supernatural. This can ONLY be fully countered when science eventually proves that there's no supernatural existence whatsoever ...... I suspect that will take another 10,000 or so years of scientific advance. Science is currently in it's mere infancy.

Oh I don't know, Diamond Pete.

I'm surmising that somewhere buried deep in your repertoire there might exist a skerrick of humility.

Just because it's not in evidence shouldn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Dear Pericles,

First I must apologise for an awkward error I made in my last post to you:

Assuming the experiment was conducted as you describe and there were no discernible differences, that would still be insufficient to declare that "there is no need to consider oneself religious", only that there are no tangible or measurable benefits in considering oneself religious.

<<The alternative is to create your very own, personal definition, and use that as a yardstick.>>

Try, say, to define 'orgasm' for someone who never experienced it.
You can detail the movements and sounds, but it will never amount to the actual experience.

Likewise, ignorance about religion is rife because attempts were made to describe it from outside by people who had no such experience.

And... like orgasm, religion also can be faked!

<<People who have been using the cloak of their religious beliefs to protect themselves from the law>>

People who escape the law would use anything at their disposal.
You make two unsubstantiated assumptions:
1) That these people are religious.
2) That they truly hold religious beliefs.
In other words, they managed to trick you!

<<And there is evidence to suggest that religious practices such as enforced celibacy and the sanctity of the confessional, have aided and abetted such criminal activity.>>

So here's another unsubstantiated assumption that enforced celibacy is a religious practice.

Wrong. Enforcing practices on others is foreign to religion.

As for [voluntary] celibacy, total celibacy is a pretty advanced religious practice. It should not be tried by novices who are not yet prepared for it. One must first learn and practice how to channel and elevate the sexual energy, otherwise it may end in ruin.

As for using confession as a religious practice, one should truly consider what they've done to be sinful. If so, then they will do everything possible to avoid repeating it. Otherwise it's a mock-confession. Just stating facts without repentance is not a confession, hence need not be considered as such.

<<Ummm, isn't this what Belly was wondering also?>>

The answer is simple - it doesn't!

Belly “Forget creed, ask about GOD, what one would skip around the horrible things done to these kids?”

Are you forgetting that the judgment of the dead is virtually a universal concept present in religions past and present.
What makes you think anyone will get away with it?

DiamondPete, calling you an idiot is merely descriptive, like calling bananas "yellow".
“When the believers can't win the debate..” You haven't even attempted to “debate”.

SPQR, Possibilianism sounds pretty close, except it's an “active exploration”.
I prefer to just float in an ocean of Doubt on my Absurdist li-lo.

Poirot “Just because it's not in evidence shouldn't mean that it doesn't exist.”

Especially if the Consciousness creating the Holographic Universe keeps rewriting the story he's making up as he goes along.
“Dragons, what dragons? Hehehe!”