Alright, let's recap.
You bowled into the thread to opine that some of us were approaching the whole religion thing in a rather superficial manner. You were asked for examples of deeper stuff that we were missing. You came up with three things, if one counts your oblique allusion to "philosophy". The others were as follows:
Dualism. Yes, I knew what it was. It's the familiar nonsense at the heart of most religions, the idea that we are divided into body and soul, or body and spirit, or whatever. There's no evidence for that assertion, and there never has been. That doesn't advance the discussion, it's simply a different name for something atheists don't accept anyway.
Deeper reflection. You seem to be saying that if we atheists simply thought harder, we might gain more knowledge about religion, to get to the real action, as you said. Needless to say, that's fanciful, not to mention arrogant. It's also a familiar religious trope, this idea that one has to open one's mind to religion and then the light will somehow shine through.
I can't see how any of your examples buttress your condescension about atheists, much less inform them about anything.
We seem to be talking at cross purposes!
My point was that there is more to religion that the dogma and scriptures, yet when I stumble across critique of religion from atheists on forums, it nearly always is on that level. As it was in this discussion. No condescension.
You asked for an example of a deeper level, and I mentioned that often involves religious practices, which it's claimed provide a deeper connection to God, or a more direct experience of reality, create space for deeper realisations etc etc.
I made no assertions about the accuracy or otherwise of those claims. My argument was that actually this stuff is * actually * the meat and veg of many religions when you peak under the surface, closer to the core of what they're really about, that is often lost in the dogma and the attempt to translate what's perceived to be spiritual realisations into language for the 'masses' (my world view).
So, specifically, my argument is: If you're going to critique religions, you need to spend time on that stuff, rather than just the surface level stuff. For sure, critique away!
Also: challenge my argument that they're more at the core - I have no doubt there are many in organised religions that would disagree!
But you seem to be arguing against points I'm not making!