[as]

It's true that I didn't make any effort to soften what I said.

If your understanding of the nature of things was largely formed more than 200 years ago, chances are that it's wrong.

[ars]

You think you are an exception, and this is a unique time in history, but it's not, give it another 200 years and you'll be wrong too.

Science has a pattern it goes like this: you discover something and you find out more and you understand it fully. (Religions get bashed here.) Every single time that happens you find out a little more and you realize how much you don't actually know. (No more bashing.)

If you think you know everything about a topic then you actually don't. You don't really understand something until you know what you don't know about it.

[byrneseyeview]

But religion as a real, testable phenomenon doesn't get more valid as one model of the physical world is discarded for a more accurate one. The Four Humors don't make a comeback when we develop an understanding of antibiotics that renders previous assumptions false.

You're treating religion as the natural fallback hypothesis, which should make it fairly easy to convince yourself that you're right.