"I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science."

[DC Al Fine]

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

[DC Al Fine]

Er Buddhism looks rather religious once you take the white folks trying to upset their parents out the mix.

[DC Al Fine]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

The consubstantial relationship between the three Divine Persons of the Trinity is not polytheism.  Each is part of one God.

Isn't everything "part of God"? Anyway the whole concept is bizarre and is only the result of an obvious over-literal view of the Bible. This "god" is always referred to in the singular and we are, if you believe the Bible, created in the image of god. If that were true.. the image of god is one person, so the whole idea of the Trinity isn't even supported by the Bible anyway which contradicts itself (at least if taken literally). Figuratively speaking I may have different parts to myself, and a person can have a multiple personality disorder, but a person is a person and not any more. So, if you take the Bible figuratively this being could have disparate personalities but not three separate bodies. The point is that there are not three literal persons. I still don't see how this wouldn't be polytheism and I am not the only one saying that.. it is an old controversy.
The trinity was invented long ago and it was political. Another problem is the idea that a finite being can conceptualize an infinite being. You can't put the infinite, by definition in a box, nor can you put the infinite in three separate boxes. In anthropomorphizing god aren't you simply creating this god in a human image? Thus human creates god and not the reverse.

God isn't always singular; John 1:1.

[DC Al Fine]

I hope I don't sound like I am making this personal. I can respect someone without accepting their beliefs. I do know Christians whom I respect. I am just defending an unpopular belief (or complete lack thereof more precisely) that is worthy of being defended.

The question of whether a belief is useful is key. It seems possible that believing in something that isn't true can be a good thing, although such a statement seems dangerous.
I will elaborate on that later. I can certainly understand a desire to believe in an afterlife, but
with speculation that life expectancy is increasing, such a belief may become less appealing.

The questions of belief based on reason and belief based on wishful thinking are two things that need to be separated at least a little..

I know that when I was a child, when my father died, the idea that I would see him again was some comfort. (although still a painful experience) So what do you do with that?

It's not that you're making it personal. The problem is that you're birdwalking all over the place to use RinoTom's phrase.