Well, if you had read my post with a little more care, you would have noticed a rather obvious qualification, boldfaced above. The rest of my post—to make this yet more obvious—was devoted to unpacking this claim. Interesting that you ignore that. In any case, I would certainly rather be a mystic against your conception of rigour: Purging nuance and operating from a private rubric of reductionisms conveniently selected to support your conclusion.

It isn't MY idea of rigor to have my position backed up by a valid logical argument. That is the lowest bar that all philosophical arguments have to meet.

That said, I am clearly not a trained philosopher, and not able to satisfy that aspect of your definition of rigour that I think is reasonable: That is, I am not yet sufficiently studied in the subject or in philosophical arguments to formulate an argument that would satisfy the high (but also reasonable) standards of "rigour" held by one formally trained in philosophy.

Here, get educated on the topic of logic then and stop using it as an excuse: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/phil_log.html

free will that accommodates subliminal mental operations

Please link to a conception of free will that outlines how agents are morally responsible for purely subliminal mental operations. I also don't think you understand how repression works because your gambling mother example is not even a case of repression but of supression. On top of that, you seem to be basing your conception of repression on an outdated psychanalytic model as opposed to a one rooted in either cognitive or behavioral neuroscience. Are you now going to start busting out thinly veiled sarcastic comments about how I "must be the greatest psychologist in the world and you are not my equal" when I start pointing out knowledge gaps you have when it comes to that field as well?

I'm not even that well trained in philosophy (a handful of university courses) so the bar you are failing to meet is actually very very low. Lastly, even if you have never stepped foot in a philosophy course, you should still know that requesting that you have a logical argument which is valid in structure, sound, and uses clearly-defined concepts is not some crazy, idiosyncratic requirement that I was holding you to.

This is not a requirement for posting on DebateReligion, so your attack on my motivations is a little pompous and unjustified, quite honestly.

I didn't say that was a requirement for posting on DebateReligion. I said that was a requirement for not arguing in bad faith. I pointed this out so that, when you inevitably find yourself accused of being a dishonest debater time and time again by different people, you avoid making the mistake of thinking people are being aggressive towards you because of the content of your beliefs. The problem isn't that you are a mystic Christian but that you argue in bad faith while being extremely defensive of your intelligence and caustically sarcastic.