Booky I really like that you made a thread like this because we're coming to a time in our evolution that we have to renew our ideas of what religion really is.
I highly doubt the ones responsible for upholding these beliefs took into account of how advanced we would become. People in ancient Greece were completely convinced of Olympian Gods but were proven to be nothing more than scientifically proven natural occurrences. Religious leaders cannot honestly believe that they can lie to an entire civilization of intelligence and reasoning.
People today want to see proof of the things we perceive around us.
I very much agree that organized religions are teaching untruths and unreal nonsense, and I agree that many religious people appear to be "lying" about their faith.
But I object to throwing out God and the assorted scriptures just because religious people are so full of nonsense.
Particularly striking to me is the very idea that some people in the first Century could have faked or dreamed up the 4 Gospels because that would be giving way too much faith and credance to things like lies and deceptions from that 1st Century.
I find it far more reasonable based on research and logic that Jesus (Yesu) Christ was a real person rather than to believe that some person(s) faked such a diverse and controversial lie, and such a successful lie too.
That would mean there were great people or great liar(s) that wrote such a fable of a "Messiah" that was so peculiar and so unOrthodox by their own standards.
Considering the "Synoptic problem" http://virtualreligion.net/forum/complete.html
alone, then that would make both the Gospel of Mark and the "Q" source as being the root or beginning forgery and that is way to hard to accept or believe because they are brillient.
That "Synoptic problem" would mean that the other three Gospels of "Matthew, Luke and John" would have had to copied and plagerize from a fake Gospel of Mark and that would be an absurd and illogical reasoning. One fake would not copy from another fake unless they thought the other was true, or not a fake.
Claiming that "Jesus" was not God or not "son of God" or His miracles were exagerated or never happened is a believable and logical reasoning to me, but not claiming some person(s) made up the story as a lie because that is giving way too much praise to the art of a liar, and giving far too much credibility to lies and lying.
An inspired deception would be an absurd conclusion.