it seems to me that you do not understand that your “opponents” are not opposed to the idea of God,
It seems to me that they are opposed to the idea of a God who desires relationship with us, if even exists at all.
but to the way you have to impose your way of thinking without nuances.
Nuance is difficult in a text-only setting. MFM said I convey my position as though it’s objective fact. I’m not trying to convert anybody here, but I am devout and admittedly generally opinionated. If I come off as though my position is fact it is because, in the case of God, I treat it as fact for my own self. I admittedly am stubbornly unwilling to entertain the notion that God does not exist or that He cares about me. Whether that’s a quality or a failing is matter of debate I suppose, but it is who I am. Frink kind of called me out for being zero percent uncertain, but I don’t know what to say about that other than I choose to not be uncertain. I hold steadfast to my belief.
Frink also says my position, that the Christian God exists, suggests itself as superior given the underlying consequence for believing otherwise—but I do get the feeling that he himself feels his position is superior in that I’m very likely gullible, foolish, and/or wasting my time focusing on my beliefs since he holds them to be false. That is, I think both positions think themselves superior in their own way.
But I do not look down my nose at him, or any of you, for not believing what I do.