Let's have a look at what you're arguing here, and lets do it logically.

I wrote:

I'm not talking about fooling ourselves, about deliberately believing in an inconsistent idea in order to get the goodies - which is what so much of religion is about. I'm talking about being as honest and open as we can with ourselves about what makes us feel purposeful, of worth, truthfully fulfilled etc. recognising that there are perhaps no ultimate empirical answers within our grasp, but pursuing what we feel.  For me, and I expect the same is true for many others who try to do this, when I boil it all down I come to the one thing that I 'know' to be of worth and that is Love, in its broadest sense, in us and between us.

To which you replied:

And what makes you an authority on what might and what might not constitute 'fooling ourselves'?  Surely different people will give different explanations of that idea?  And what is this about being effectively ruled by 'feelings'?  When empirical evidence shows that our feelings can change direction about as quickly as a ride on a roller-coaster, surely allowing ourselves to "pursu(e) what we feel" can lead us all over the shop.

Your first leap of logic is your assumption that I am in any way claiming to be 'an authority'.  Why would anyone assume that?  Most of what everybody writes here is their opinion. There was nothing special about what I wrote that would single it out as a claim to be 'an authority'.   

Your second leap of logic is your assumtion that doing what you feel to be Loving will cause us to change direction. Why should this be?  Why should doing what we ascertain to be Loving lead us 'all over the shop', and on what  basis do you claim that the Bible won't lead you all over the shop - as people keep pointing out, the God of the Bible is inconsistent, calling for people to be stoned, women to be **** and children to be killed one minuite, and then calling for compassion and mercy the next?

So I replied to you:

There are views of God which are logically inconsistent - They simply can't be true because they are self-contradictory.  One doesn't have to be an 'authority' to point this out - it is simply self-evident.

And you replied:

So self-evident that there are plenty of people from a huge range of backgrounds and walks of life who would disagree with you, Martin.

Why should we logically assume that because there are a huge range of people from a huge range of backgrounds and walks of life who would disagree with something, that it should make it not self-evident from a logical viewpoint?  Many, many people aren't logical in their thinking. So it would be pretty amazing, given the number of people in the world, if there weren't swathes of people from all walks of life, who were not in agreement.

So then I responded:

Quite so Andy.  Such is the power of religion that it prevents reasoning in many people.

To which you replied:

Including many people who are so prevented from reasoning that they are employed by our leading universities to teach such unreasoned thinking at degree, higher degree and Ph.D level, Martin!!

Once again, you make the point that there are many people who disagree with me, this time trying to add weight to your point by pointing to the ones with degrees and higher degrees. I could point out here that the vast, VAST majority of people with degrees and higher degrees, in disciplines which require solid logical thinking, are not religious. There will, of course, be a few who are but then again you would logicaly expect some illogical views to slip through.  So it's exactly what we'd expect.

So far you had not made one decent logical point.

So I recapped.

As I said - there are views of god which are logically inconsistent. Now of course there may be highly qualified people who believe otherwise, but they are generally the victims of dogma. 

The way to argue against accusations of illogic, is to produce a logical argument.

And you replied:

I'd have to agree with you, Martin, especially on the latter point - something I haven't actually seen from you all that much.  Usually, you rely on emotion and straw-man arguments.

So I challenge you, Andy, to point out where in this exchange I have been illogical or have relied on emotion or have produced any straw-man arguments.