Pacific Babe, I can not prove that Jesus is who He says he is in the bible , or that the God in the Bible does in fact exist and is based on reality of the world we live in.  Nor can you prove that humanity evolved from other species.  You are even unable to provide enough factual evidence that would win a case in a court of law.  It is a shame that you have to use manipulation in your article from the beginning of the 2nd sentence to the end.  I can, in a court of law, provide enough evidence to show that Jesus existed, and show that Jesus did state that He was in fact God, but others believed that He was God, that he did the things in the Bible, that were reported about Him, and was never considered a liar, fool, or mentally ill.  This has already been done many times over, and the verdict has always been the same.  No one in the scientific community will ever say that trans-species evolution is anything but a theory, that has yet to be shown as factual.  There just is no evidence that can show any direct or indirect correlation.
When people stop doing things that harm themselves, harm others, or harm property, or other life forms, and are able to live in close social proximity with others, and do no harm during their lifetimes, then there will be no “sin.” We humans do more harm to other humans.  When was the last time one person went a week without hurting themselves, or others, or both, or even treated everyone with compassion and respect.
Tunkashila, Buddha and Krishna talked about Jesus with awe and respect.  No other religious leader has ever said the he was God incarnate.  Can you prove that Jesus was a myth and do it in a logical systematic manner?  So far, you would be the only one who was able to do this.  Christopher Hitchens was never able to do it, and I doubt that he even tried to.  
It takes faith to believe in Christ Jesus.  It also takes faith to believe in evolution, or trans-species evolution, or to not believe in a  supreme being, and view life as an agnostic or atheist.  You have your faith, and your reasons for believing what you do believe in. I have my faith and my reasons for believing what I believe in.  Most likely, some one is wrong, and we are betting our lives on what we believe is the right choice.  We are fully responsible for our actions.

So, I’m catching up on my reading and ran across this NYT’s article written 2 days ago (12/23/11).  It brought me to the point of wanting to vomit, particularly when I read “Thanks to the absurd ideas peddled by American fundamentalists, we are constantly forced to respond to the myth — debunked long ago by scientists — that homosexuality leads to pedophilia.  For years, the christian right in America has exported its doctrine to Africa, and, along with it, homophobia.  In Uganda, American evangelical christians even held workshops and met with key officials to preach their message of hate shortly before a bill to impose the death penalty for homosexual conduct was introduced in Uganda’s Parliament in 2009.”  Here’s the full article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/opinion/gay-and-vilified-in-uganda.html
 
So Ron Wyman, Michael Patrick Brewer, Anon3 and Believer is this the sort of article that makes you proud to be a christian?  Even if you feel this is wrong, it continues, and it continues when christians claim to be “liberal”.  Quietly liberal christians support this sort of hate.  You may all think missionaries are great, but I personally despise the message they send around the world, just as I despise all stupid christians and religionists who are willing to pridefully rely on “faith” … which is to say you all remain pridefully IGNORANT!  It’s time the world stop hanging on to a sky fairy and realize that today is just another day … albeit a day we can concentrate on more compassion, but a day we best give up the idea of the supernatural.  Babe

Someone above pointed out that an idea should be judged on its merit, not on its source. Which is true; though a polluted source can often be an indicator.
Sexuality is one of the very powerful forces that is too important to be left up to myth, religion, avatars or what have you. The old morality of restriction (picked up by Christianity but not unknown in most other major religions today) is particularly troublesome in the modern, congested world. Repress something, and it will find a way out, at least statistically. Hence the sexual abuses that have plagued the Roman Catholic Church and also some Buddhist monasteries. This is a separate issue to whether the ‘religion’ is authentic or good or not. The morality is wrong.
In the olden days, control a person’s sexuality and you had control of the person – very useful is certain situations. For instance, if a spiritual hermit did not want to be constantly bothered with thoughts of sex, he or she could voluntarily emasculate (or in exceptional cases, sublimate) that part of themselves. Even more handy for political and business regimes disguised as religion. Realising the changing times, some cults (political and religious) mandated that sex is ok if you are one of the faithful. A bit like the sex within marriage rule that bolsters so many religions. The family unit, whatever its merits, also being a useful unit that can be politically controlled and, with benefits/handouts to the unit, far more manageable than free-spirited single people or non-procreating (homosexual) units.
We all decide to believe in something – we believe in hope, our children’s future, the goodness of man, or our ability to succeed if we work hard or earn that degree. Belief is a powerful psychological tool. When belief is micromanaged by religious movements then there is less room for a scientific approach to self-improvement (one of the main aims of religion) or community welfare (another stated aim, which often fails on account of the imposed morality or sexual restrictions of the religions).
It’s perfectly ok to believe in a non-existent god. An imaginary hero can be as useful psychologically as a real or historical one. But examine the purity of the image and everything associated with it. If it is impure, re-make it in your own eyes or find a new one. But if you call your image ‘Jesus’ (as many evangelicals do without the slightest recourse to history or even an accurate knowledge of the bible), then you will also be liable to a backlash from the community of believers and priests that also use that name in their own image.
A problem with Xmas, to get back on topic, is that the whole mass of humanity – that worships or pays some sort of lip-service to someone or other that they call Jesus – comes together in a cross-national celebration of sorts. The result is that underlying fictions are reinforced. The priesthood gains in power from the mass turn-out (whether to mass or just mass-consumption). It gathers tremendous psychological force.
If it didn’t, religions that committed as many atrocities as our ‘modern’ ones do would all be banned, the same as any other movement that provided a fertile ground for immoral acts. But given the token acceptance – and some good PR in the form of altruistic or philanthropic deeds – sensible moves to do away with such cancers will continue to struggle. One day the struggle for good will succeed – but it may take a few generations yet!