Yeah, we're talking past each other. I'm not arguing here or anywhere else for monotheism. I argue against the scientism of much new atheism and against secular delusions which are roughly as wrongheaded as the theistic ones. Mainly, though, I argue against exoteric religion.

So you say that by defending the nonrational basis of a belief system, I might as well be defending Harry Potter as a worldview, which would be absurd. But what you're implying is that the secular world is free from delusions. I beg to differ. Self-destructive, infantile consumerism is one such delusion.

And the promethean urge to eliminate every trace of the wilderness is a functionally humanistic faith that's motivated civilizational growth for millennia. No, I don't attribute the latter faith specifically to Dillahunty. But yes, I argue that that "satanic" ambition is implicit in secular humanism.

I agree that theistic religion can be rejected on rational grounds. I've done so at great length in my writings. The question I'm raising here is whether there's a positive secular alternative worldview that isn't based ultimately on a reckless leap of faith or on fantasies, noble lies, myths, and delusions. I think there is, but this philosophically respectable secularism differs greatly from its mainstream presentation.