There is no reason for you to apologize. It's the people who write the hate mail who should be apologizing. I don't think that those people represent all Christians any more than I represent all atheists.

I certainly look forward to your discussion and will be happy to post it here. However, I should make clear that I never said the arguments you mention were "stupid," even though I disagree with them. I try very hard not to use words like that, and in general I'd find it hard to think someone was stupid when they were trying to work out whether an argument makes sense or not.

By the way, I don't have a "hate mail" section. All correspondence that I post goes in the same area, whether it agrees with me, disagrees with me, or just plain makes no sense at all.

You misstate my position slightly. I don't say that someone who has faith based on feelings is not unintelligent, but rather that such faith is not in-and-of-itself evidence of unintelligence. However, I don't think that this misstatement make much of a difference in the context of you letter, and you make some very good points.

You are absolutely correct that if you believe certain types of behavior will lead others to hell then you may be morally compelled to try and show them the error of their ways. In fact, I wish more people took their professed beliefs this strongly -- I see far too many examples of people who say that they are religious breaking significant commandments, seemingly without batting an eye. As a concept, I have no problem with attempts to convert others to a certain belief system for their own good (in a sense, that's what this Web site is, so I can't very well argue against such actions). However, I do believe that we can condemn certain methods of attempted conversion (physical force, harassment, discrimination, force of law, etc.)

I have met many people who really, honestly want me to be religious for my own good. On the other hand, I am going to need quite a bit of convincing before I accept that those who curse at me, spit at me, or try and have me silenced are motivated by anything but their own needs.

I don't find it hard to accept that many people believe in the Bible. There are, however, degrees of Bible belief. For example, I can accept that someone might believe that the Bible is truth and science is not an effective means of obtaining knowledge. I start to worry about consistency, though, when you speak about evidence of Noah's flood (which is, so far as I have read, incredibly shaky) but seem very skeptical about evolution (for which evidence is monumental -- and which was popularized by Darwin, a Christian).

If you have looked into the subject of science versus Biblical literalism as I have, then I applaud you for having the intellectual courage to do the research, even if you have come to a different conclusion that I. I find that one of the most valuable exercises is reading texts from all points of view and trying to figure out what I agree with and what I disagree with. I would not call you unintelligent just because we disagree or because you have a different criteria for judging scientific truth than I do. I would, however, be interested in learning more about your beliefs.