>At a very fundamental level, religious and secular people might never be able to have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the world. It's probably for the best that we usually maneuver around these black holes on HN.

There are better places for such discussion. However, I consider it a general rule that in all hangouts for intellectually curious people, if you flippantly say something controversial, expect to be challenged.

>However, having said that, I'm fully aware that no amount of argumentation can convince a believer (see my other comments on how religion closes that avenue after it infects a brain). I'm sorry if all that sounds pompous, arrogant, or just plain stupid to you.

I am not primarily arguing to convince you, but for the benefit of observers who are not as personally involved in our exchange. Besides, I think you are probably a thoughtful and intelligent person, and as such I would not expect you to be convinced of something over the course of a debate. Rather, if you did change your mind it would be on your own time and after much reflection.

I am sorry, however, that you believe religion is a incurable mind virus. Perhaps if you did not believe as you do, then you would take a different approach with your arguments.

>Other things that don't rank high on my list of credibility indicators are: the number of people believing something, and the social authority of the people believing it.

This, in and of itself, doesn't make you any different than a conspiracy theorist. I don't mean to say that you are one, and I don't necessarily hold authority or consensus very highly myself, just that rejecting them doesn't tell me much about your rationality. Regardless, my point was not that you should believe something because a lot of people, some of whom were pretty smart, also believed it. More about my actual point below.

>Nevertheless: it's possible for a scientist to be completely wrong about most things, and yet produce valid scientific theories. Only when superstition and science collide directly, work usually suffers. Otherwise cognitive dissonance works pretty well. You also have to keep in mind that historical figures had a different cultural outlook than we do today, and I'm boring myself as I write this.

OK, my point: cognitive dissonance is a pretty different phenomenon from infection by a memetic parasite. Your claim was that religion "has evolved to competitively inhibit the brain's logical and moral facilities" and that it "poisons the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally". If people with religious belief were so inhibited in their logical facilities, and could not freely reason about data or the environment, we would not expect them to be able to make mathematical, scientific, or technological advancements. They clearly have, and they continue to do so despite the cultural outlook of today (Knuth, for instance, is still alive).

Furthermore, when I talk about the large number of people who are religious, I am not saying "it's silly to think so many people are wrong"; I am saying "it's silly to think so many people are mentally handicapped". Especially since so many of these people are able to contribute to business, the arts, the sciences, etc.

Now, I am not saying that you are stupid, or handicapped (Indeed, your HN profile and web site indicate the opposite). Just that your thesis is bad psychology.

>I think a bit of brutal honesty is in order.
You will find that, in this, we are in agreement.