I suppose that the only thing proved by this "atheist" series of threads, is that Jack the Sailor likes to fight, and Steve Shaw likes to fight.

If you think that you can get to me by way of this entirely dishonest gambit, think again. There is no equivalence between me and Wacko Jacko. There is not one rational member of this board that would see me and him as some kind of equal and opposite. I don't even need to go into the reasons. I know precisely what you're trying to do here, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

So, than it ends up being a choice, not a matter of proof. You choose belief, or you don't. Either one is OK by me. People don't usually choose belief based on "blind faith" (which usually means doing what somebody else tells you to do). They choose belief because it makes sense in their lives, for one reason or another - oftentimes, it's because they have had one or several experiences that they perceive as the Presence of God. Belief should have some sort of rational basis, but it is by definition beyond rationality.

Unfortunately for your rather circuitous argument, most people who end up believing have not chosen belief. They have had belief foisted on them by accident of birth. They have been instructed by religious "education" exactly what to believe, and that has included an all-too-clear threat of the sanctions for demurring. Your belief may well make sense in your life, but there are far better ways of making sense in your life that you have chosen to (or been forced to) reject. Belief in God cannot enjoy any scintilla of rational basis, as it is based on the summary rejection of all the evidence belonging to the contrary view. It is blind faith every time, in the sense that you close your eyes to rationality. Now I know that there are more things in life than rationality. We are not all Mr Spocks. But let's at least be honest about what comes under the umbrella and what doesn't. Joe Offer may well be a particularly enlightened example of what a believer can potentially be, but he is not a microcosm of the whole of the rotten world of religious faith, not by a long chalk, and that argument is a pretty poor defence of religion.