First and foremost, I want to thank you for your thoughtful and well-thought-out note. I am flattered that you think my site worthy of such deep thought.

Addressing your points, it is true that I tend to "give little ground" in my discussions. This is because, after so many years of going over this same territory, I rarely hear a new argument, so it would be unusual for me to run into something that would change my opinion on this subject. That said, there have been cases where I have changed the site's intended-as-humor content based on reader feedback. As you read through the correspondence, you will also see that I have no problem with "agreeing to disagree" when sharing points of view. Looking at this another way, I try to never berate someone just because they disagree with me, and I do not make it a personal goal to try and turn everyone into an atheist.

I do not, in any way, mean to imply that those points which I disagree with do not have merit. For example, if someone says that they have a deep feeling that there must be a deity, I will argue that this is not proof of a deity, but I do not in any way mean to imply that I deny the person's feelings or think less of them for having those feelings. I also do not feel that someone who does not agree with me is therefore somehow less than me. I sincerely hope that my disagreeing with people is not taken as my somehow judging them.

You give the example of avoiding arguing with a theist because such arguments give credence to the theist's point of view. I am of the opinion that, in most cases, discussion and polite debate is far better than not sharing thoughts and opinions. On the subject of evolution vs. creationism, I think that sharing of information is important, but I also think we need to be very careful not to give the impression that formal debate (in which debating skills are often more important than facts) is part of the scientific process.

I agree that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of god. However, the people who wish to discuss this subject with me believe that there is such evidence. I would not feel right saying to them that I will not discuss their evidence because I already know it to be poor. Refusing to enter in to the discussion neither helps the theist reflect on their own beliefs nor helps them understand the thinking of an atheist. If my goal is to share information, encourage dialogue, and promote understanding, then discussing whether or not god exists is not, in my opinion, counterproductive.

So, although I do agree that there is merit to the belief that discussing god in some way gives god some validity (as proponents of the linguistic argument for atheism would agree), I think that there are other factors which render this point less significant.

It makes me sad that you might feel that I do not facilitate discussion and "expound my own ideas and ignore (or always disagree) with anyone else's ideas." I have had several nice discussions as part of this site (as you can see in the Notable Conversations section) and would like to have more. I also have no problem at all with any reader who wants to go through my statements and tell me why s/he disagrees with all of them. I am very, very interested to know if and why people disagree with me.

I should also point out that I do not publish some of the correspondence from people who just plain agree with me. Let's face it, that's not too interesting to the world at large. I also believe that it is much more likely that someone will write to me if they disagree with my beliefs than if they agree with them. And, to be perfectly honest, I don't run into a whole lot of people that I completely agree with. I obviously disagree with theists on many topics. I disagree with most people who call themselves agnostics. I disagree with atheists who say that there is definitely no god. I disagree with atheists who deride people just because they are religious. Let's face it, I disagree with a lot of people.

Be assured that your note didn't sound angry at all. You are voicing a sincere and reasonable concern, and I'm hoping that I can reassure you that I am not as much of a gainsayer as I may come across. I'll try and keep an eye out for that tendency in the future, because it really isn't how I want to be seen.

Oh, and thanks for not throwing me into a logical conundrum for disagreeing with every point that you raised, because I think that may be what I just did <G>.

By the way, if you're willing to share, I would be very much interested in what your personal religious philosophy is.

Thanks for the nice note. Sadly, I have heard every single one of the items on the Arguments page -- most of them more than once. Sometimes they are the result of simple ignorance, and I don't think less of someone just because they don't know something (well, unless they are going out of their way not to know it). But sometimes they are used as "zingers" that will, the speaker hopes, shut down an atheist and show the foolishness of atheism. Ironically, when a well-informed atheist has a response to the "zinger," the conversation generally ends anyway, since the questioner seldom knows how to continue the discussion. This is just sad. I wish that we could all discuss our differences and opinions without worrying about who will "win" a given conversation.

I should also point out that for every lame argument against atheism, there is a lame argument against theism. Ignorance works both ways.

Please don't hesitate to call yourself a Christian just because some Christians are idiots. I call myself an atheist even though there are plenty of seriously annoying atheists out there.

The point of this site is to spark discussion and generate understanding. I'm glad that you are with me on this -- I think that willingness to civilly share ideas is often more important than what those ideas actually are.

Let me clarify a point. I would not say, "it is reasonable to think that god might exist." Instead, I would say, "it is not reasonable to say that god does not exist." I admit the possibility that there is a deity, but I believe that possibility to be vanishingly small. I don't believe that the tooth fairy exists because I see no evidence along those lines, but I can't prove that she doesn't exist.

Regarding your second point, let me ask you a question: Are you an atheist who wishes you could have faith, or an atheist who wishes that there was a God? This is an important distinction. Personally, I am happy to have as little faith as possible, since the less you accept without proof the less chance there is that you believe something untrue. On the other hand, I think it would be great if there was a loving super being who would make sure that the world was a just place and give me a big reward when I die. But if the price of believing in such a being is giving up my devotion to only accepting that which is apparently true, then the cost of belief is too high.

There's nothing wrong with hoping for compelling evidence for God. There's nothing wrong with hoping you'll win the lottery. But, frankly, I think you have a heck of a better chance of getting the latter.