The fact that you have irremovable truths and absolutes is self-evident. If you hold onto an absolute, though, you are bound to make decisions based on that absolute sooner or later, and those decisions impact those around you - people who may or may not have faith in the same absolute. This creates tensions and ultimately damages society, unless everybody agreed to the above absolute. Therefore, religious people tend to force their absolute on society, by means of conversion or other influences, to avoid the damage they are doing to the society while still conserving their belief.
The fact that faith conflicts with logical thought is simply shown too: all things that are accepted as true without proof can be used as hypothesis for logical thought, and that reaches conclusions which are different based on which absolute you believe in. This is in contrast with logical thought which aims at reaching the same conclusions for every thinker. This conflict can only be solved by limiting, hindering, or negating altogether logic (logic cannot prove god because he is above logic). This creates a situation where the believers refuse to use logic in a debate, and that is #1 on the list of "things that end a discussion", right above stating to be fascist.
I agree with the third paragraph until the point where you exclude the damage of non religious people that value faith above truth and include religious people that value truth above faith. Politics is a great place to observe the legislating of morality from both secular and religious sources. The two greatest moral convictions that have influences in the legislating of morality in US politics I have seen are Equality and Rights.
It is more important for one to want to believe what is right than for one to want what one believes to be right. This difference in values is absence/cause of the problem you described not the particular beliefs.
This is mostly a semantic problem (my fault) as I tend to consider "people who have faith" and "religious people" as the same thing (which is correct to a certain degree, but I know some people who have strong faiths without being religious and vice versa). Therefore, I correct my statement:
"The fact that you have irremovable truths and absolutes is self-evident. If you hold onto an absolute, though, you are bound to make decisions based on that absolute sooner or later, and those decisions impact those around you - people who may or may not have faith in the same absolute. This creates tensions and ultimately damages society, unless everybody agreed to the above absolute. Therefore, people with faith tend to force their absolute on society, by means of conversion or other influences, to avoid the damage they are doing to the society while still conserving their belief."
Regarding your last statement, consider the following: by having faith in something, you accept it and negate the need to prove it. That means to you, what you believe in is right. Since the "mystery of the faith" is something all religions, more or less, have (particularly so church-based ones, as that strengthens the need for an interpreter and thus the social leverage of priests) religions (or most religions at least) all share this premise. You accept your god's existance as being right. That means you cannot "want" what you believe to be right, as that would mean your faith falters and you are disputing the basic premise of your religion (accepting the existance of your god). However, if you have faithin a god, you can't want to believe what is right either, since you have accepted, as basic premise, that what you believe is right.
Your argument then refers just to the portion of people who accept the possibility to be wrong on matters of faith, but that means they no longer have faith to start with. This might seem limiting as it refers to a shriking percentage of people but first, it is not that uncommmon to find people like that in my country, and that means a good deal of people in the world are in the same situation too, as we are not the only underdeveloped country there is. In fact, many more people live in underdeveloped countries than in the so-called "developed" ones. Second, the main problem I can see with this attitude is the fact that, being as we are introduced to religion at a very young age, and introduced to proper scientific methods at a very late age if ever (I refer to "proper" scientific method here as in the modern, post-1931 discussions of scienfitic method, rather than just the Galilean Method - which is rather disputable) people oftentimes have the tendency to refuse rationality when confronted upon delicate matters. For instance, many people refuse to use mathematical tools in situations where doing so destroys their points entirely and claim that "maths can't be applied to everything", even when they agree on all the premises maths need to be applied.
Do you know any sufficient conditions?
And regarding this. I present you to the multidimensional alien deity argument.
Say there is a deity A that is, of course, a deity. Say the Christian god exists (if you don't think being the Christian god is a "sufficient condition" I think we may have a problem applying this, but whatever). Now imagine that this dimension is (as some physics incidentally suggested) like a paper sheet that hovers into a hyperspacial dimension where infinite other such "paper sheets" exist. Now imagine that there is an alien deity B, distinct from A, that created A, A', A''... all deities in their respective "paper-dimension". These deities, all being Christian gods, created the world, the universe, laws of nature, everything et cetera et cetera but, in our hypothesis, only in their respective "paper-dimension". This of course qualifies as being a god for all our purposes, as there is no possible way for us humans to find out anything about alien deity B if deity A doesn't want so. In fact, deity A is all-powerful and perfect, and doesn't want anyone knowing about itself, let alone about deity B. Now, even if your set of "sufficient" conditions for being a deity were to exist, those conditions could easily just refer to deity A, while deity B remains hidden and unproved.
Before anybody tries to say "but you can't have a Christian god if you don't encompass all possible dimensions", this argument doesn't work: Godel's Theorem. Of course you could try to avoid that, but if you manage to I suggest you call the Nobel Organization immediately.
