OK, Michael, you arrived at your own distorted view of religious faith on your own, although you define religious faith in words that are strangely similar to those of the Dawkins machine. Maybe all atheist bigots talk the same. Maybe the wording was there long before Dawkins, and he's just marketing it. Rather than getting all bent out of shape about that, why don't you take the time to respond to what I said about faith being a sacred perspective rather than an ideology based on a false proposition? Exactly what is this false proposition that you suppose I base my life on? Your definition of faith and Musket's insulting "imaginary friend" bullshit do not even come close what I have worked very hard to explain to you is my faith. I took a risk and I explained to you twice as best I could what it is, that is sacred to me. I exposed myself to people like you and Musket and your propaganda.
I think that it should be possible for open-minded atheists and open-minded people of faith to have meaningful discussions of just about anything, with a respectful realization that they both have different but equally valid perspectives.
I don't think that fundamentalist religious people can do that, and I don't think that Dawkins atheists could do that. I had hoped that you and Musket and some others might be able to do that (Bill D does), but maybe you are too strongly tied to an absolutist way of looking at things.
Now, do me the favor of giving me a rational response.

-Joe Offer-