"Why can't religious people see this as a much, much greater feat of creation, resulting in God being infinitely more omnipotent?"

Mmmmm, because there is no evidence for a multiverse?

It's not testable. It's an idea. An idea that seems to explain away the problems of God found in our universe. The problem is that an idea does not equal truth. When faced with multiple ideas the weight of the evidence should be the basis of some rational line of thinking. And the evidence does not support a multiverse.

I also suspect religious people don't see the physical creation, or more specifically God's omnipotence, as the whole character of God. There's the omnibenevolent and omniscient aspects (etc.) as well. Just because God can do something doesn't mean he should or did or does do something. And despite his omnipotence, God cannot create a square circle. His omnipotence is bounded by logic.

I think your statement is interesting because you have systematically predetermined that we should not explore the worldview and have an opportunity to increase our knowledge.

I would venture to say that evidence exists to support or discredit any claim about anything. Because evidence exists does not make the claim true or not true. While this is one explanation it should be viewed with respect to other explanations with the evidence lending support to the conclusion.

The claim you make rests on an assertion that "the Genesis myths were allegory because those desert nomads didn't know how the world began." I think this one needs substantiation. Similarly, we can assert that the only true knowledge is that which science verifies. Well, that statement is not testable and becomes self-refuting. So if you say the nomads didn't know how the world began but we do now because of science, unfortunately that is not the end of the story.

Furthermore, the evidence that Paul made the whole thing up has a hard time standing up to the preponderance of evidence supporting a risen Jesus among other things. A "fatal flaw" in this case seems more akin to a line of reasoning that simply needs to be explored and weighed against other evidence.

Wow, exclusion is a form of bullying. Post-modernity gone amuck.

here, here. Me too, but not too long. Congrats on affecting the world. Seriously.

Yes, this passage surprised me:

“We are aware of no prior case holding that a teacher violated the establishment clause by appearing critical of religion during class lectures, nor any case with sufficiently similar facts to give a teacher ‘fair warning’ that such conduct was unlawful"

I am not a judge, but I'm thinking it's their opportunity and their job to be the first ruling in a case like this. Someone has to establish precedent.

"Clearly and obviously?" Not trying to sound obstinate here. How do you know that?

analogy can be illogical.

It seems that when scaled up, the spirit of communism devolves into the communism in name only that we all know so well. I believe this devolution is a factor of human nature to screw up a good thing. And that's making an assumption that communism is a good thing - an entirely different subject.

Interesting. I'd agree on a number of levels with this position. I've had to help a 60-something woman (who recently lost her husband who did all the computer work) to get her wireless mouse working. Because the USB nub wireless receiver fit perfectly into her mouse for storage, she assumed that is where the nub was supposed to go. She didn't understand why her mouse didn't work. She laughed when I "fixed" her problem in about 12 seconds.
I guess the appropriate response is know your audience. How do they work? What do they want to see and how do they want to see it? Perhaps the eG8 knows their audience. Perhaps we hangers-out on slashdot are not the primary audience.

I suppose an intellectual is neither of these. Perhaps as dogmatixpsych states, an intellectual may be segregated from the real world behind the walls of academia. I'd like to think that an intellectual neither memorizes nor learns but synthesizes and develops alternatives based on what is already known. If an intellectual happens to be grounded in the real world then those alternatives may also be relevant and productive.