I visited your site but somebody scribbled all over it. ;) (How's that for linguistic chauvinism!)

What you said above hit home with me: '...my Christian friend simply "brainstorm" all kinds of interpretation in a attempt to steer away from the sticky part....' I remember so well doing that myself as a Christian.

In that critique of God Delusion, again a similar trick.

I'm sure every atheist blogger has run into this: Christian or other theistic commenters who act as if they're merely trying to understand and/or to debate, but who are really only interested in playing "Gotcha." Nitpicking with minor, offhand points you make while ignoring the main point; putting the worst possible interpretation on what you've written, and then arguing with that.

It's almost as if they're being deliberately obnoxious and obtuse. And sometimes I think they are. But more often, I think it's unconscious: they can't allow themselves to take the larger ideas seriously and debate them seriously, since that might put chinks in the armor of their faith. So they play "Gotcha!" -- and think they've successfully debated you and defended their faith.

If religion was true then the more we studied it the more its truth should shine out, instead the experience of many people is that the more they study it the less sense it makes.

I did not mean for this to turn into a debate. I just thought it was a neat statement and wanted to preserve it for myself and share it. However, I got responses like the following which makes the tired assumption that scientific reasoning is the only form that atheists will accept

If religion could be proven or disproven simply by thinking about it, what would the point of faith be? Religion is not science, it should not be treated as such, from both sides of the issue mind you. If you seek religion from the same frame of mind you seek the answers to math problems, no it won't be very appealing, but then it never claimed to be that way.

and this one, which interprets the statement in a way it that is clearly over analyzing it

The first part of that statement is incoherent. It is like saying "If philosophy were true...". Religion, like philosophy, (and neuro-chemical patterns!) is not the sort of thing that can be true or false. That can only particular said of particular religious or philosophical statements.

Statements about my atheism are held to a much higher standard of precision than, for example, statements about politics where my friends have opinions that largely overlap with mine. It is annoying to be held to a different standard just because they hold a different set of beliefs.