Having combed your website a bit more, I still certainly believe your claim that you came to your beliefs in a sincere manner and without improper motivation.  Further, although I disagree with much that you have to say (and believe that so many of your claims are as unsubstantiated as, if not at times much more than, what you say of theistic claims), I still appreciate the amount of (critical) thought that you put into your website

Thanks. Regarding substantiation, you may want to distinguish between writings in which I merely summarize an argument and writings in which I explain and defend it.

(although the more I read, the more sloppy reasoning I find).

Can you give an example of my sloppier reasoning?

However, regrettably, I must retract my statement that you practice polemics in the best sense of the term.  Too many times I have come across statements of your's that are couched in the most smug, overly self-confident of terms.  Further, the self-congratulatory nature that underlies so much of your website is disturbing.

Can you give an example of a "smug, overly self-confident" or "self-congratulatory" statement of mine?

I think if you presented your thoughts in a more cordial and humble manner (while still remaining confident), your website would be much more effective.  Delivery is half the battle.

Can you give an example of how one of my more "smug" statements could have been "more cordial and humble"?

You're the fourth or fifth Christian to call my writing arrogant or smug, but none of them have ever complied when politely asked for even a single example to substantiate this character attack. I'm led to suspect that such attacks on me are a rationalization or psychological defense mechanism of some sort.

H: Two kinds of available evidence leap to mind. One is the near-universality across human cultures of rituals and customs implying belief in an afterlife, going back tens of thousands of years to the use of grave goods by Paleolithic H. sapiens. These beliefs obviously did not derive from philosophical or scientific rationality. The other kind of evidence is the lack of philosophical and scientific knowledge among the vast majority of humans who believe in an afterlife, combined with the obvious emotional appeal of that belief.

G: you still do not demonstrate that "too much evidence that belief in it [an afterlife] derives MORE from emotional need than critical thought."

I never claimed to "demonstrate" that. "Demonstrate" is a very strong word, and I try to use it only to mean presenting a case that is effectively undeniable for a reasonable and educated person.

You can believe what you want, but there is absolutely no way to scientifically quantify your contention.

It's a common defense mechanism of Christians to insist on an unreasonable level of proof when their worldview is threatened. Do you have "scientifically quantified" evidence for the truth of Christianity?

I never claimed "scientific quantification" for my point about emotional need versus critical thought; I just said there's "too much evidence". I described some of that evidence for you, and showed that a conclusion similar to mine is reached even in such a non-contentious reference work as Encyclopedia Britannica. You failed to directly address that evidence.

I have no problem SPECULATING that some (even perhaps most) belief in an afterlife derives from emotions (after all, an emotional derivation of something does not negate its truth);

That it does not negate its truth is one reason why I'm not very interested in presenting all the myriad and subtle evidence for that derivation -- much less "scientifically quantifying" it.

but there is simply no way to know to what degree human beings down through the ages, given the philosophical and scientific knowledge of their respective times, have reflected critically upon belief in an afterlife

"To what degree" -- how many significant digits of precision are you insisting on here? :-) It's specious to claim that the grave goods practices of Paleolithic H. sapiens were as likely as not to have involved "critical reflection". Is that really your claim?

It's simply circumstantial evidence, at best, to say that because the genesis of belief in an afterlife appeared at approximately the same time in cultures independent of one another,

You misrepresent my case. My point was that the particular time of that genesis can be characterized as pre-scientific and pre-philosophical. You did not address this point at all.

therefore human beings accepted this belief MORE on genetic predisposition (which would dictate emotional need in such belief) than on critical thought.

Genetic? I said nothing about genetics, and by your apparent standard, anything could be said to involve genetic predisposition, since humans have no capacities or needs that are completely independent of their genes.

My guess is for most people that it is either a combination of the two (which we could not begin to quantify),

Again the "quantification" strawman. We can of course make characterizations of the relative strength of the two factors. That we don't have a digital readout concerning these factors is no reason to pretend we have zero information about them.

or simply inherited belief that one reflects upon neither philosophically nor scientifically, nor the emotional need of such a belief.  Rather, one reflects upon, however uncritically, the emotional connection of such belief (e.g. my parents believe it, that's why I believe it).  That is different than being emotionally attracted to the belief in an afterlife qua belief in an afterlife.

You seem to assume that for these people, emotional need can't be a factor in a belief unless the believer reflects on that emotional need. If this second category of yours is just people whose belief in an afterlife does not depend on an emotional component, I have no problem admitting that such people exist. I just think that they're about 100 or 1000 times less numerous than the first kind.

H: My point is that anyone who supports the actions of Yahweh in the OT has a seriously flawed sense of morality.

G: The area where you are clearly weakest is biblical scholarship (I wouldn't even know where to begin to critique the hermeneutical approach that you employ to teach the reader about Jesus).

Another generalized and unsubstantiated criticism of my writings. What is the most obviously incorrect statement you've seen me write about Jesus?

Suffice to say, there are several different sophisticated levels of hermeneutics (which take into account different theories of inspiration and revelation in the Old Testament) that can be used to appropriately explain the "actions" of Yahweh in the OT.  You seem to read ALL of the actions of Yahweh in the OT at face level, which is not at all how so many of them should be/were meant to be interpreted.

Where is there a shred of evidence in the NT that Yeshuah bar Joseph didn't take literally the Torah's reports of Yahweh's actions? Jesus no doubt took the Torah accounts literally, right down to the murderous flood professed in the Letter to the Hebrews 11, the burning bush professed by Stephen in Acts 7, and the human sacrifice of Isaac affirmed in James 2:21.

Through responsible biblical criticism,we can better understand what the biblical author intended as literal, historical, poetic, symbolic, exaggerated admonishment; etc. (this is not to soften the genuine biblical portrait to make it easier to swallow; I'm sure there are parts that you still wouldn't like).

The god of the Torah tests and torments his followers, commits mass murders of e.g. Noah's flood victims [Gen 6:7, 7:21] and the firstborn sons of Egypt [Ex 12:29], creates linguistic division for fear of an ancient construction project [Gen 11:6], and curses mankind because Adam dared to "become like one of us, knowing good and evil" [Gen 3:22].  The god of the Torah promotes or demands extravagant worship, dietary taboos, animal sacrifice, repressive sexual codes, human mutilation, monarchy, subjugation of women, slavery, human sacrifice [Lev 27:29, Jud 11:30-39, cf. Heb 11:17, James 2:21], and mass murder of even infants [Ex 11:5, 1 Sam 15:3, cf. Heb 11:28]. In the gospels Jesus affirms even "the smallest letter" [Mt 5:18, Jn 10:35] of the Torah and promises sinners not a thousand years' torture, nor a million or a billion, but an eternity of excruciating torture by fire [Mt 18:8].

I can suggest a plethora of good books/commentaries on both the OT and New Testament if you'd like.

The Hebrew tribal deity from your sacred Torah scrolls stands indicted by my previous paragraph. You either can tell me why your deity isn't guilty as charged, or you can't. These charges cannot be dismissed with a wave toward the two-millennia-old stream of rationalizations and obfuscating defenses that Christianity has produced for the actions that its own sacred scrolls say Yahweh committed. A competent deity wouldn't need a "plethora" of books and commentaries to excuse the prima facie immorality documented in his own divine revelation. A competently beneficent deity wouldn't need the morality of its revelation explained or defended; rather, that revelation would be the self-evident gold standard against which all other morality is measured. The the deity of the Torah scrolls was clearly incompetent in effecting his revelation, but Christians are mired from infancy in a millennia-old swamp of rationalizations that is too deep for them see out of. A competently beneficent deity would effect a revelation that is obvious and undeniable to any rational person who investigates it. The fact that there is nothing like a consensus among rational investigators for any revelation-based religion is an unmistakable sign that no competent deity has attempted a revelation to us.

(by the way, it is very misleading to say that the NT is c. 100; the earliest writings are some Pauline epistles from the early 50's; Mark was 65-70; Matthew and Luke 80-90; and John 90-100/5)

"Very" misleading?  The NT was written from the early 50's to the first decades of the second century. The core of the NT is the gospels were written in the last three decades of the first century (if not later).  I elsewhere give the same dates as you for the writings you mention. I of course wasn't seeking any polemical advantage by rounding to the nearest century, and I'll change it to say c50-100.

G: I find it ironic that you think the Christian idea of eternal damnation is unjust.  In fact, it is just the opposite.  In a free will schema (under God), theoretically one can, with full knowledge, choose his eternal destiny: life with God, or life without God (eternal damnation).

H: Your argument here does not even begin to answer the standard critique of the justness of hell. See http://humanknowledge.net/Correspondence/India/ for a discussion.

G: I simply wished to point out the irony in your position, I still completely stand by what I said.  The correspondence to which you referred me does not negate my position, so far as I can tell.

The correspondence indeed demonstrates the prima facie unjustness of Hell. If you find "irony" any time someone makes a statement based on a detailed argument with which you disagree (and make no counterargument against), the world must seem full of irony to you.

I will conclude by restating that I still find it rather peculiar and tenuous that you find it necessary to find physical artifacts or historical records to believe in the possibility of Jesus' divinity.

(Misrepresentation: I already indicated to you that I believe in the possibility of Jesus' divinity.) For me and several billion other people, the available gospel evidence does not motivate a belief in the probability of Jesus' divinity. So I wrote "A divine Jesus could trivially create new miracles to unambiguously vouch for some modern school of Christianity. For the gospel accounts of Jesus to be believable, two kinds of evidence would have to surface." Can you tell me what other kind of evidence might surface that could make the gospel accounts (more) believable?

I fail to see how the discovery of the Shroud of Turin is a proper demarcation line.

I said nothing about a "demarcation line". If an artifact were discovered that strongly corroborated the supernatural claims of the gospel accounts and was not subject to a better naturalistic explanation, then I would accept those claims. The Shroud is the most famous candidate for such an artifact.

Further, once again due to your apparent lack of knowledge of modern biblical scholarship, many of the historical records that you seek to uncover will never be uncovered

"Uncovered"? Are you claiming that there is reason to think documents corroborating the supernatural claims of the gospels once existed, but are just destined never to surface?

because the biblical author most likely never intended for them to be understood as historical events (e.g. the example that you gave of the sky turning dark for three hours on Good Friday).

If the gospel authors were mistaken or metaphorical about some of their supernatural claims, how can you believe any of their supernatural claims?  Please explain how "modern biblical scholarship" gives us reason to conclude that any supernatural claim of the gospels is true.