"You might think of the various proposals as a single God with different attempts to describe its nature, but I can't reconcile the claim that "God loves all humans equally, and is blind to race" with "God loves whites more than blacks, and does not want the races to mix"
Lewis explained quite well how those things can be reconciled. If man's capacity to err is not infinite, it's close enough to make no difference. In addition, Satan is always around, whispering in our ears.
"He does not, however propose (within the context of the quote) a means for discerning when you have found the right perception of God."
Why not read the entire book? It's on line.
http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt He explains, I think in his preference, that he intentionally avoided that.
But that doesn't mean it can't be done. I'd suggest you do two things: use your reason, and stand on the shoulders of Giants. Right reason and your heart will tell you that religions which have as a tenet (not as an abuse or excuse, but as a tenet) such things as forced conversion and the killing of infidels have something wrong with them.
Then, too, as a thinking man, you will see that a religion that is more developed and has a more sophisticated theology is likely to be preferable to a more primitive vision. There are always a lot of flash-in-the-pan religions coming and going, so longevity will be a clue.
Of course, you'll need more information, and that will mean reading things that atheists don't ordinarly read. I always recommend "Orthodoxy" and "Heretics" by G. K. Chesterton, because they are both short and entertaining.
http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/ Chesterton was a major influence on Lewis, whose "Mere Christianity" must also be on the list.
"And how is someone like me, who lacks belief in all propsed gods, to discern which is a "better try" than another?"
Clearly, you need more information, especially as there is so much bad information floating around. People arguing the atheist perspective often throw out a very simplified version of theology, suitable only for a six year old, and then correctly point out that no thinking man could be expected to accept it. You're going to have to avoid that. The three books I recommend would be a good start.
Then, too, God has endowed all of us with a certain degree of right reason. You're going to have to use that, and to try and see where our modern ethos contradicts it. For instance, the right reason written on our hearts tells us that the wanton killing of innocents is wrong, yet the modern ethos tells us that it is quite permissible to kill the most innocent among us.
"You've now just proposed two new sets, a "Satan" and "malign spirits". Why should I give this claim any more credibility than I give a "God" claim?"
It's actually one group, with Satan merely the strongest. As for credence, well, why should you reject it any more strongly than you reject God? If there is a God, why would it be impossible that there are also malign forces?
It is not logical to argue that some given empirical reality mandates against the existence of God when that empirical reality becomes not only explicable but obvious given the existence of malign forces. That means that the very non-existence of God that you seek to demonstrate depends on the non-existence of the malign forces.
Put another way, if the existence of malign forces explains the phenomenon without requiring God's non-existence, then you must have prior grounds for asserting the non-existence of the malign forces, or that argument fails.
"God-shaped hole? What is this? How can it be detected?"
Oh, you've felt it. Thing is, we generally can't see its shape. It is only when it is filled by the one thing that fits it perfectly that we know what it was we were always lacking.
"Interesting. I've never been terribly interested in "sexual adventure" (I've always thought that non-monagamous lifestyles cheapen the experience of sex overall)"
But why do you feel that? And why does sex have value that can be cheapened? Isn't it just an animal function that gives us pleasure? In a neighborhood where dogs run free, you'll see a female taking on all comers, and the males fighting for their turn. Are those dogs cheapening anything of value? Why is it different for man?
"while I sometimes experience periods of angst, I suspect that everyone else does as well"
Not everyone, no.
"I do hope that you're not trying to imply that it would be better for me to be a militant Fundamentalist Muslim than an atheist."
Before I posted my previous note, I deleted the last line, which dealt with that. I figured that if you answered, you'd bring it up, and I'd deal with it at more length.
It's a good point, but a very complex one. It is true that some religions are just corrupt to the core. The Baal worshipers used to burn their babies alive, and that offended God so much that He sent the Jews to wipe them out. Against all odds, the Jews succeeded. I have no doubt that He also finds terrorism to be offensive in the extreme.
On the other hand, a bad Muslim rejects the passages in the Koran that were dictated by Satan, which call for the indiscriminate killing of infidels. A bad Muslim, say one living in America, does not insist on practicing polygamy. In all, a bad Muslim might be a very decent person, and his conduct pleasing in God's sight. I would say that it is better for such a person to be a bad Muslim than to be an atheist.
Now, as to a terrorist: what would he be like if he were an atheist? Obviously, we can't say with any assurance, but mightn't he be just as bad as he is as a Muslim? The people responsible for the killing of 100 million innocents in the name of Communism in the 20th century were all atheists. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Che Guevara were all atheists.
Better, obviously, not to be under the sway of Satan, but does it really matter if one is working Evil in the name of religion or in the name of anti-religion? Not to the dead, I'd say.
There's another clue available to us. Generally, if the absence of a thing ensures undesirable results, and desirable results are only obtained where it is present, we can say that the thing is necessary to desirable results, though possibly not sufficient.
Here's what Will and Arial Durant have to say on the matter:
"Does history warrant the conclusion that religion is necessary to morality -- that a natural ethic is too weak to withstand the savagery that lurks under civilization and emerges in our dreams, crimes, and wars? ... There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion."
They said "before our time." What of our time? Religion is in serious decline. What about moral life? Is the West successfully maintaining moral life?