And even if it does respond, but not in a way he likes. And even if it fits the OP better. Even if it is someone else’s thread and he is the one off or more on a tangent.
Yes. And the response is not really a response. It is a reassertion of his position. He did not interact with your ideas. He does not justify the continuation of saying that sans God is so different from avec God, around determining what to do, GIVEN what you wrote. Reassertion posing as critical response. Been there suffered that.
But he cannot give up saying there is a radical difference between sans God and avec God. The latter must solve all the problems, otherwise what is the point of this thread and others. What reason would there be to bait theists into the rabbit hole of never really being responded to discussions that give opportunities for him to say that they have failed to convince him.
Of course many theists agree with him. So, he should have his autumn and winter years filled with the same activity.
A truly grounded discussion of religion could only have experiences in it. IOW it would involve attempted participation on his part and then a sharing of specific experiences they each had with religious practice and then likely experiences that just arise. Of course this might not solve the gap between him and theists, but the really odd thing is he think that he can understand a theist’s world without actually experiencing any of it. And without then trying to see if what a theist bases his or her experience on has parallels to what he bases decisions, actions, attitudes and beliefs on. That’s the second step, one which few active non-theists takes…first participate, then compare the actual bases for decisions, actions, attitudes and beliefs that it seems like theists have, with his or her own bases for those things. IOW if you really want a Christian to show you why they believe what they believe, you can talk until you are blue in the face, or you can go to mass, read the Bible, and spend time on that. You can also go deeply into how they arrived at their beliefs, probably best talking to people who went from atheism to Christianity. Find out exactly what experiences they had, practices they engaged in, and at least pursue these a bit yourself. Also, once you begin to understand the make up of their process, see if, in fact, it mirrors processes in your own arriving at beliefs, attitude, choices, actions. They may be more similar, as far as epistemology than one realized. This could lead to thinking there would be no loss in continuing the day to experiencing of a religion. Other religions could also be experienced in this way.
So of in the spirit of the first approach below from the OP
My emphasis added…
Now that is a false dichotomy. Even this thread is neither one of these processes, so there is at least a third. But note the importance of experiencing in learning.
Reading arguments, even with specifics, is not doing this. It is a forumula for repetition.