Dan Silverman,

i enyojed reading your post because it shows that you have really thought about it, and finished these thoughts,
and that is meant as a compliment.
But let us go to the statements:

The complexity: I just tried to keep it as simply as possible,
and i have to say: This analogy is not from me,
it's a common statement for the crowds, and thats why it sounds like it was one - indeed , it is one.
The fact you mentioned was,if i understood you right:
"The so called holy books contain provable and unprovable statements, and if you test the testable statements, and all of them turn out to be wrong, then the untestable statements are having a very high chance of beeing false, too",
right ?
Yes, thats right, if you read it word by words,
but lets remember that these things are metaphors.
An example is the statement that jesus should have been able to walk over water -
but "water" in these times was a synonym for the existing law, which jesus have broken and made his own ideals and laws.
Because i'm not very interested in these holy books,
that is one of only very few examples i have.

-Proving things
Well, thats a big problem, because:
1. Only the dead can really prove if and which kind of afterlive is there
2. The Not-Existence of things is very hard to prove in science, example: Prove the non-existence of invisible kobolds that no one has ever seen ;-)

Number 1 leads to the conclusion that all the blind people who are not able to see god by themselves need other seeing people to tell them, very good example of yours by the way.
But who sees ? You have priests, medial persons or all that call themselves, you have holy books, and you have people that have been reanimated.
I tend to believe the last ones, only because they have been able to take a little look, perhaps only brain disfunction, but here the propability is the biggest.
Number 2 Leads to absolute tollerance in my opinion,
because i can't reallyprove that ANY religion is wrong.

But , beeing a pragmatist, i prefer to value religions by what they have bought to mankind - genocide in most cases, as you stated - look at my former post a little bit over the one you replied to, i guess we had the same conclusion, even with very different theories.

-The idea i like:
Yeah, i didn't statet that it was true, just that i like it,
and i like it, because any religion has a place in it,
and it leads to some tolerance.
Hey think about it - it may be not very likely in your opinion, but what if for example the christian religion was absoluteley true ? Then, we were the bad guys, because anyone who believed us that religion is unlogic, would burn in hell for that, and the crusades then would have rescued a lot of people from hell - a complete different port of view,
and remember : We cannot prove the opposite for sure ;-)