Sushi_Biker:Wow. There's a lot of ground to cover here.
First, I have zero motivation to lie to you, or about you. You used the word "lie" several times. I have not lied, dissembled, or attempted to mislead anyone reading this.
That may be true, but it doesn't appear to be, given the evidence.
Sushi_Biker:
Second- I'm not pretending that you meant something else. You meant it. You have changed your view. Your "disclaimer" is honest and accurate and I appreciate that. I don't consciously think you mean to lable people, but you're careless with your words and you do it. I certainly don't expect you to be honest with yourself and admit it though.
You have no basis for telling me what I meant, or that I changed my view. It is far more reasonable to conclude that either I didn't express myself clearly, or you were unable to understand what I meant than it is to assume that I spontaneously reversed my opinion with no introduction of new data.
Basically, you're telling me that I meant it because you say I did. Another fairly weak argument.
Sushi_Biker: Third- you're the second person who erroneously state that I said somewhere that Christians outnumber some other group. I honestly do not recall saying this. I said "people of faith". Please quote me if I did say this. If I DID say that Christians outnumber someone and I was wrong, then I will publicly apologize and offer a retraction. I withhold my apology until that quote is found.
Without re-reading this very long thread, I think you said something to the effect of the majority of people do not agree with me when I say that the bible contains untrue claims. Assuming that the vast majority of people who believe the bible to be 100% true are also Christians, it was reasonable to conclude that you were implying that the majority of people are Christian. If that's not what you meant, sorry.
Sushi_Biker:
Fourth- I don't see how you can lose faith and become an atheist unless faith didn't work for you, but I'm not going to argue if religion did or did not work for you because that's a personal matter that I can neither prove nor disprove. I stated an opinion and apparently I was wrong and I will admit that. I am neither comforted nor discomforted by any reason or experience you have had that led you to your current philosophy. Confused as to how you arrived at the decision? Yes. I have no other feelings on the matter.
I'll explain it sometime if you want, but I'm not going to burden everyone with my biography. A simple version would be that I lost faith in faith itself, and I was sad to let go of all the great things in my life that were only being propped up by faith.
Sushi_Biker: Fifth- Re: YOUR view that religious books are incompatible with civilization, et al. No, I wasn't lying, and yes I now understand the distinction. Thank you for clarifying. Especially for making the distinction "I".
Sushi_Biker: Sixth- Validation. You do tend to give an impression that anyone who doesn't share your view is a weak-minded fool, incapable of independent thought. No, you don't come out and say it directly. Validation can be about anything, you don't have to join a religion to find it. You can find it with any other like-minded group. I maintain that since you spend most of your time in this channel of the forum debating the folly of organized religion, you seek validation of your belief. But like I said, that's my non-professional medical opinion and I'm probably wrong.
Believers are definitely not automatically weak-minded or stupid. Some believers do very stupid things because of their beliefs, but they would probably do stupid things for other reasons if they didn't have those beliefs. I will though, definitely draw a clear distinction between rational thinking and magical thinking, and I'm openly critical of magical thinking. I offer no apology for this.
I spent a lot of time on this channel because I like discussing religion and philosophy, and I have a boring desk job. Anyone around here who wants to see me a lot less, please point me in the direction of some sort of active, outdoor job that pays well and isn't mindless grunt work. Thanks. 
Sushi_Biker:
Seventh- the scientific method. I stand corrected. Theories can only be disproven. However, you are not quite correct when you imply that a theory is the highest level of scientific integrity. We have scientific laws. You mean to say the Universal Law of Gravitation. A scientific law is a theory that has stood for a long enough time without being disproven as to be considered the final answer. None of this disproves the existence of a diety or higher intelligence. I concede that many religious texts appear to have conclusively been disproven by science. I'm cool with that. They were written down by Man after all, and Man is deeply flawed.
Laws and theories are not on the same scale, and one does not aspire to be the other. Wikipedia has a more concise way of putting what I would probably express much more sloppily:
"A law differs from a scientific theory
in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it
is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As
such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling
those already observed, and is often found to be false when
extrapolated."
So no, I didn't mean to say the law of gravitation, and a law is not a theory that has stood for a long time.
Sushi_Biker:
Bottom line: I never lied. Wrong maybe, but I admitted that several times in this final reply, something you are fundamentally incapable of doing. I am saying that you are very careless with your words, imprecise and very disrespectful to others when debating this subject. You cast a wide net when debating this topic. You can explain your point without being disrespectful. I've told you this before.
George Carlin is such a hero of yours, but did you ever hear him talk about the amazing power of words? He does in several of his older acts. Profane words are still just words and he thinks you shouldn't allow you to be hurt by them. Some words just sound funny despite their serious meaning. Poor choice of words can lead you down a completely different path than the one you meant.
No, I'm not careless with my words. Yes, I cast wide nets over the sort of magical thinking at the heart of all religions. My disrespect for religion is intentional, although I try to separate religion from its adherents and reserve my harshest criticism for the religions themselves, not the individuals who believe in them.
Here's another wide net, although it's not 100% universally true: religious people tend to be pretty easily offended, and a critical discussion of religion tends to involve a lot more hurt feelings and backlash than a critical discussion of other subjects. I'm used to this, as are most people who criticize religion, which has long been a revered and protected industry. I'm not all that concerned about upsetting religious people. It's often unavoidable.
Damon Allen - Las Vegas, NV - 2008 H-D V-Rod
