No, that isn't how it works. I have good reason to suspect everything to be false that you do not provide reasoning for. Whenever you make any kind of positive assertion, the burden of proof is on you, not me. That is how it works in law and in philosophy. Otherwise, all is to be doubted. The first thing I want to say when you make these claims is "Show me. Prove it to me." You have not done this.
Yes, I am quite familiar with Kant and Kierkegaard and I understand your posts quite well, having been through all of this as a philosophy graduate and having taught classes in philosophy and contemporary logic. The point is that you are spouting these assertions in such a way that much is taken for granted. Though you have accepted their ideas with much genuine reflection, that does not mean that others have and therefore you must be careful in this setting if your desire is to have an actual conversation with anyone which has any bit of intellectual integrity. Of course, if your desire is to try and take over all debates and sophistically try to supply answers without supplying your reasoning for others who are not psychic and unable to understand your thought processes, keep on doing as you are. However, I like to have faith in the human element and hope this is not the case.
And Karl Popper was a very smart man. Unfortunately, you are not following his advice. There are very many conventional meanings for many of the words you have used, such as the cosmology example, and so invoking Karl Popper gets us nowhere, especially taken to extremes that he did not intend (by the way, are you working with the essays or which text? Are you working with a translated work?). Cosmology is a philosophical concept and a scientific concept. I deduced that you were talking about the philosophical concept (which I should not have had to do) but cosmology is still to general, as it can mean a number of things dealing with a number of different areas of reality, such as the physical world, the so-called spiritual world, and it is even sometimes used in a much more general psychological context. This is not a matter of being too picky about word choice, it is a matter of the material you have presented not being specific enough. Fortunately, if I recall, this particular instance was not extremely significant to the overall meaning of the proposition you were positing, but you leave much room for confusion and misinterpretation.
These are not rebuttals to my problems with your post. You are trying to explain something to me that I understand quite clearly and it is not helping the situtation. Again, I have read more than my share of Kant in the original. The problem is not necessarily with the material you are dealing with in your posts or your education in philosophy, but with the style and method. And one is not more important than the other if you honestly seek to have a dialogue with the other people here. This is what I said at the beginning of my first criticism. It was a critique of your argumentative style. The method is as important if not more important than the ends when you are publicly stating your opinion.
Also, the very word "theology" in your Buddhism comment is problematic because many people use this word in many different ways. Some use it to mean systematized dogmas, some use it to mean the body of work that has been written down or passed down through the ages, depending on the tradition you are working with. It can be a very specific word or a very broad one. You leave too much to the imagination, and that was the problem I was addressing, if you go back and read my post. The point is that you could make more meaningful contributions if you would simply be more careful about your methodology.
And by the way, what is Buddhism to you? You've said that it is not a theological religion, so, unless you are saying that Buddhism is not a religion at all, you are saying that it is one of your "mythological religions" because you said that all religions can be pigeon-holed into one or the other. Either is difficult to argue, I would imagine. Seeing as how it deals with the mystical and is always in the religion section of the book store (ha ha) and most do not take the stories literally. And again, saying that Buddhism is an abstraction is another unclear use of words. Abstraction can mean many things and there is not one clear-cut ordinary use of the word, especially not in philosophy. Abstraction in the platonic sense? Abstration as in a single notion or idea? The point was that there are too many fine points to make the claim that all religions fall into one category or the other in a clear cut manner.
To try to pigeonhole all world religions like this is probably more ambitious than I trust you are qualfied to make unless you have spent your life work studying this very topic and have the encyclopedic knowledge and evidence to back up the claim. If you indeed have this knowledge, again, you need to present your evidence. The first thing everyone wants to do when you say this is find exceptions to your rule, and there are many. Historical religions are very heterogenous and complex things that are hard to pigeonhole, especially when you look at them not as systems, but as historical and social conglomerations of phenomena and ideas. Religions, just like all social constructions, are very non-static in nature, even if they claim to have principles and doctrines. For example, I have heard that Benedict currently has a research team out on the condom issue and the Humanae Vitae.
And by the way, Kant only put an end to positive theology (if you follow the Kantian tradition), and not apophatic theology. Huge distinction. Given, apophatic theology is limited in it's scope, but that's nothing new.