Sounds like you’re agnostic, unless the evidence presented has convinced you of the non-existence of God. If the later, what evidence has convinced of God’s non-existence?
(Note: no ax grinding or selling of a particular world view on the topic here, just interested in your thought process on the topic).
Well I disagree with the concept of knowledge gained from something other than sensory experience. A baby is born tabla rasa.
(So the author’s statement about: “theism requires no more intellect than that which an infant can muster, why should we argue” is really just a rhetorical smear.)
If people want to use faith to make decisions I don’t agree with that but it’s their business.
As for how I evaluate claims—well the nature of the claim itself is important. If it’s an extraordinary claim that has been made over the period of many centuries, and yet has only been presented with poor arguments and no direct evidence then things like credibility come into play.