Ad 8) You assert that I assert how the game board was created. I've done no such thing and it's an obvious fact that universe is equally indifferent to everyone. Or in other words the natural playing field is equal for everyone. It was a metaphor or analogy. I thought it was obvious.
Ad 9) You cannot compare an ideal outcome of philosophical naturalism with twisted outcome of religious or spiritual teaching. That's not only dishonest, it's pure propaganda. Spirituality approached critically has the same outcome as philosophical naturalism. That's a fact not an assertion.
Ad 10) When we talk about nature of reality we cannot leave out the observer, his/her psychology etc. So, calling every insufficiency in the knowledge of a discussant due to their biases or lack of experience an ad hominem is a poor cop-out. It's pretty dishonest no matter how convenient it is. If there was an ad hominem, it was in the closing paragraph of my initial reply, then again that was not an argument :P
Ad 7) The mere fact that neither apologetics nor the whole moral discourse you allude to were able to come to definitive and generally accepted conclusion is the first thing that hints at the possibility that there might be something problematic in the formulation of the problem itself. It's akin to the "problem" of angels on the pinhead. But more importantly, good and evil are only human categories. World is neither good nor evil. It simply is. Or in other words, where was good and evil before human came to be?
Ad 6) It's hardly an assertion that when you don't know something you simply don't know it. Alas, religion (or spirituality) cannot be known from books. It must be lived in order to get it. The books (i.e. scriptures) are merely experiential guides. At least the pivotal ones, not the hills of commentaries on commentaries on ... etc. That's simply a fact that you may appreciate one day (or not).
Ad 1-5) In my initial reply and also during the several previous months, I gave you plenty of arguments (read actual non-negotiable scientific facts) that support without a shadow of a doubt what I say. Yet, you still dismiss all those facts as if they didn't exist. Nuff said. I'm sure your philosophy jargon has a name for such kind of fallacy.
So, to sum it up -- you write up a timeline of evolution of religion which you yourself admit is most probably factually wrong (which it is, even though I have the feeling that that statement of yours is just a "safety" in case your assertions would get called out), yet you still draw conclusions from it (naturally incorrect, as expected). And you have the audacity to call that philosophy. Hm, you sure don't lack self-confidence. That, however, does not make your conclusions correct.
