Golly, I go away and work on the deck all afternoon, and y'all have been having fun here without me! I didn't write who said each of the things in italics, but I hope whoever said one of them knows who they are and can attack respond as appropriate.

The cockles of my heart are truly warmed by such a display of charitable Christian tolerance.

I didn't say I don't tolerate stupid people. Hell, if I couldn't tolerate them I'd die, because this country right now seems to be chock full of stupid people. The vast majority of the stupid people saying stupid things in the news tend to be Christians, or claim to be. They do make my teeth hurt, I'll admit.

What most people know about epistemology can be fit into a thimble. They then make big pronouncements about science this and reason that, and to somebody who has actually studied epistemology, they come off looking like fools. But if you say that, you're attacked as not being a good little Christian. What-the-fuck-ever.

Oh, and people who say, "I don't have a belief system" are also deluded. Everybody has a belief system. Unless you are using the term "belief system" to mean "religion" -- which you're allowed to. But if you use words that way be sure to pay them extra, like Humpty-Dumpty. That said, I won't say that atheism is a belief system. Atheists have belief systems, which is to say, a system of interlinked beliefs in their heads. One of those beliefs may be "God does not exist" or a watered-down derivative thereof. I'm not saying atheism is a belief system.

You see religious people advance the hypothesis: 'there is a God'

This is where you're wrong. We do not advance that as a hypothesis.

Which says more about you than anyone else, I'm afraid.

Yes, it says I am familiar with epistemology and you're not, I'm afraid.

Do not impose irrationality or your faith-based rules on others.

I agree with this. Probably makes me a bad Christian, and somebody will be along to make an arch-sarcastic comment about how they find me an inferior Christian and are therefore unlikely to go to my church because of me.

I should, however, like to see more evidence of religious moderates disliking or disapproving of religious extremists.

I disapprove of religious extremists. I think nobody should be forced to do anything because of somebody else's religion. This is one reason why I am in favour of pro-choice laws even though I personally believe abortion is wrong.

Now, when will atheist moderates show evidence of disliking or disapproving of atheist extremists? If anybody even hints that Dawkins might be an extremist, a whole phalanx of hysteria comes out of the batteries and is broght to bear. You Christians this, you religious people that. Poor Mr Dawkins, he just thinks that raising a child in your own religion is worse for a child than being the victim of pedophila. Yes he said that. He took it back, but I'm skeptical that that means he doesn't still believe it. It just means he got caught saying something out loud he shouldn't. THAT is extremism, friends.

It's also really really really really stupid to think that bringing up a child in one's own religion means that they will stay there.

It's the sheer arrogance of believers in assuming that the rest of the planet should put up with this not-so-subliminal proselytising that's so amusing ("Get over it": - sorry, Joe, but you said it!)

Like I put up with posters on the sides of buses saying God doesn't exist? Hey guess what. This country has freedom of speech. I'm allowed to say "God exists" in public, and you're allowed to say "No he doesn't." If you can't get over that, there are lots of nummy countries you might prefer to live in. Sadly for you some of the ones that most cracked down on religious people speaking out are now gone. Although I'm sure if you were interested you could get a bunch of people together and buy an island and insulate yourselves from the free speech of people you disagree with.

Personally, I am an Athiest because I can't conceive of a greater divinity than Duke Ellington.

Who, ironically, could. Still, a clever line.

BUT I regard the questioning of metaphysical concepts which I find absurd to be a different order of communication altogether;

For my part, I have no problem with people questioning "metaphysical concepts" (you mean like the existence of matter? Oh wait, not that kind of metaphysical concept) (grin) all they want. But using words like "sky fairy" are just blatant attempts to be insulting/disrespectful/rude/funny. They can't possibly taken seriously as an attempt to civilly discuss religious issues. And people who insist on the propriety of using them are hard to take seriously.

In what way is My Ding-a-Ling a manifestation of the divine?

Doesn't God have a penis?

I do think they are irrational to some degree, in that they are willing to believe something for which there is no evidence.

See, this is an in to a conversation about what it is reasonable to believe, and what counts as "evidence" for any given proposition. I would love to have a real discussion with any atheist about what is required for a working epistemology that can take into account the ways people actually work vis-a-vis believing, knowing, etc. It's almost impossible to do that online, and without a little background reading. So I'll be polite here: thinking that you have "evidence" for everything you believe, and that they don't have "evidence" for believing in God, is a weeny teeny bit naïve.

As I've said, faith necessitates a leap into thought processes that I cannot make. I usually try to say I "think" something is true rather than merely leap unthoughtfully to a place where a thing is truth because I want it to be that. To me, it's just wishful thinking!

Very few people become believers via the "leap" route. That's a trope invented by Kierkegaard that has little bearing on 99% of believers. I don't understand your "think" thing -- who doesn't think that certain things are true? I must be missing something.

@BillD: I agree that the fudge laws trying to worm out abortion clinics by regulating them to death are wrong.