Yes, it was childish for me to call you uneducated. Certainly not moreso than you calling those who believe in God "ignorant", but that doesn't justify it. Sorry. Your arguments just suggest a limited understanding of Christianity.

The point is and always has been that religion (like everything else in this world) gets abused -- when people kill in the name of God, or use it to gain power over other people -- then of course it is wrong. Roman Catholicism exhibits abuse of religion as it profits enormously while prescribing new teachings to its adherents as those in power see fit. That, however, puts them in a bad light as it's easy to look past the likelihood that they aren't really seeking to be manipulative.

The Reformation was actually a big deal, recognising these abuses, and putting God's Word -- for your sake: "The Bible" -- first. The result is Protestant churches that generally put The Bible's teaching first, even if they have varying attachments to some traditions (hence most of the difference between denominations, which are ultimately of little importance). People aren't in power over others; God is. The reason I'm a "Baptist" is that there is no hierarchy -- each church has its own "Pastor", and the congregation can elect for him/her to leave if they want. The main differences between most denominations are church structure and adherence to symbolic traditions.

This isn't about me saying everything about Christianity that is obviously wrong is not the way I do it and thus not important. I have moved around a lot, been through many different Protestant churches of all sorts of denominations, and if I've ever left one it wasn't because it didn't fit with my ideals, but because of issues such as me moving, or the leadership there being boring. These are all places where I see a community that is not only under no financial obligation, but is also not under the control of any human being, nor each other.

I can't recall anything about TV priests -- I can't imagine I ever had much to say on them, since I've never been one to watch televangelists.

I am by no means "ignoring what is happening" -- I have never dodged around the negative parts of generalised "religion" that result from abuse, gross misinterpretation, baseless superstition, and the flawed nature of humanity. Yet you say there is no God, partly on the basis of the aforementioned abuses evident in the world ("the last thing a God would have demanded"), ignoring that some actually follow him outside the influence of such abuses.

I never suggested that the general consensus is that it is an illusion. I suggested that some like the idea that time (not time-space) as a simple chain of one thing causing another is an illusion. Allow me to expand:
If time is simply a chain reaction of events where one thing causes another -- time works just as we see it and is not an illusion -- then time needs a beginning. Why? Because nothing could happen without being caused first, and if this chain goes back eternally -- every effect waiting for the cause before it to occur first -- then nothing will have happened. Time appears to be absolute, but the relativistic view is that this isn't true -- hence describing time as "an illusion" (not whether or not time had a beginning -- the finite/infinite nature of time-space is debatable in other threads -- simply that time is "absolute"). Perhaps "illusion" wasn't the best word to use. I've already forgotten my intention in attempting to explain MMike's description (which is a little difficult to understand -- not his fault, but English is not his first language); I remember someone asking about it, but looking back I can't find anyone seeking a clarification.
And I explained what I meant to say: all examples of self-proclaimed agnosticism I've seen are of similar logical grounds to Joozey's (I say "self-proclaimed", since many people who call themselves "atheist" just because they are unsure are actually "agnostic" without knowing it -- not referring to anyone here). I find it interesting that you find his situation unusual, and perhaps you can elaborate on that. I don't think I gave any reason for you to believe that I thought you were being aggressive in your statement -- sorry if I did.

In regards to your last post: my statement (which Joozey agreed with) doesn't attempt to suggest that we can't believe that something will always hold true even if it is only on the basis that it has always worked that way. Personally, my point was actually that God's existence has not been disproved. Many claim (though this isn't directed at you at all) that their disbelief in God is scientific; but that doesn't fit with a scientific perspective. Disbelief in God comes from other reasons.

Sorry for the very long and still-offtopic post!

Jibb