1. You cannot argue scientific fact with someone whose belief system is supposed to be based on faith. If you don’t understand why that is the case, then I believe your understanding of scientific principle is flawed.

2. “Good” reasons for whatever a person believes in are not universal. Yours is not the only valid measure of what is a “Good” reason to do or believe in something is, and it is simply arrogance to believe so.

3. I am not a fan of moral relativism, however it is true that what is right for one person is not right for another. Anyone who makes the blanket statement “Religion is harmful to others.” Is missing that point, and is also forgetting that for some people it simply works better than secularism, because it is based on intangibles.

4. When we talk about the rules of any way of thinking, the irrationality I mentioned before appears regardless of the source of those rules. Bronze age dogma, vs modern day scientific elitism/egocentrism, neither is more rational than the other.

And, more importantly, Both sides become equally defensive when their beliefs are attacked, whether they are religious or not. It is not a trait that only religious people exhibit, as you seem to believe.

5. Sure some religious people try to explain religion in scientific terms. I didn’t say that makes any more sense than than atheists trying to make scientific sense of religion. Both approaches are equally and deeply flawed.

6. Again, religious thinking is NOT scientific thinking. The fact that religious folks try to make parallels doesn’t make it true. If you don’t understand why this is the case, then I don’t think you understand religion either.

7. I really don’t care about things being equal. You seem to think that your way of thinking is smarter, cleverer, and superior to those that are religious. That is simply arrogance talking, not logic or rationality. Believing in science does not automatically make a person any more rational than a person who holds religious beliefs.

Some people need intangibles in order to keep going. Sometimes the independent conviction it provides is more useful, and more effective as a motivator than others. Some humans can walk through life not knowing anything about anything. Others need to have answers, some kind of structure, a reason for being, even if it makes no sense.

And there are people like that across the board, not just religious folk. It is simply a function of human nature. And everyone has the right to decide for themselves how to deal with that dilemma. We each pick our own poison. I guess it is also human nature for everyone to believe their poison is better than everyone elses, but it simply isn’t true.

You cannot place these ways of thinking on a scientific balance and say one is better than the other. It ignores the fact that *people* are different. You seem to believe that modern secular humanism is so much better than religion. But I see the same flawed lessons that are often learned in religious contexts also learned in secular contexts.

It is no better at conquering human flaws, irrational thinking and emotions than any other way of thinking. You’ve simply traded one set of rules for another, but are still dealing with the same, flawed humans you had before.

None of your arguments have been about understanding humans at an individual level, only making wide sweeping assumptions about groups of people. And yet you claim to rile against the oppression of individuality of religion, which, incidentally, is also a flawed presumption.

I don’t have any problems with modern Secular Humanism, I think it’s a good thing, but in my admittedly irrelevant opinion, your arguments have not showcased it’s strengths particularly well either.