further referring to the first time the bill was brought up by the Rep. who clarified What the bill was meant to do

So one representative "clarified what the bill was meant to do" on behalf of Congress? That sounds fine to me.

What he said about religious and moral convictions was not part of the bill.

Did you actually bother to read the Congressional Record? The proposed bill would have deleted the "moral conviction" clause from existing law while leaving the "religious conviction" clause in place. At that time, the bill had both different categories. My whole point that they are separate categories for a reason.

No where in the actual written law of Maine is philosophical exemption referred to as "moral convictions."

The National Conference of State Legislatures had incorrect information about Maine law. I apologize for the confusion. It was not my intent to be misleading. (But notice who when I make a mistake, I quickly admit it instead of grasping at straws? I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.)

Here is another law where "moral convictions" and "religious convictions" are treated as separate categories:

(b) The registrant who identifies his beliefs with those of a traditional church or religious organization must show that he basically adheres to beliefs of that church or religious organization whether or not he is actually affiliated with the institution whose teachings he claims as the basis of his conscientious objection. He need not adhere to all beliefs of that church or religious organization.

(c) A registrant whose beliefs are not religious in the traditional sense, but are based primarily on moral or ethical principle should hold such beliefs with the same strength or conviction as the belief in a Supreme Being is held by a person who is religious in the traditional sense. Beliefs may be mixed; they may be a combination of traditional religious beliefs and nontraditional religious, moral or ethical beliefs. The registrant's beliefs must play a significant role in his life but should be evaluated only insofar as they pertain to his stated objection to his participation in war.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/1636.6

Obviously, "religious convictions" are one category under 1636.6(b) and "moral convictions" are a different category under 1636.6(c). Clearly, they are separate and distinct under the law.

I am still waiting for your evidence "moral convictions" and "religious convictions" are merely a literary tautology? Is there any legislative history to support your opinion? Are there any court cases to support your opinion? Simply because you assert an opinion "doesn't mean that it's correct." I also await any proof - since you have sent none - that it is "a bold statement and a faulty one." I will close with your words once more:

No one has forced you to defend your statements [that atheists being moral without religion is bold and faulty].... If you want to back down and not defend your arguments that's your decision. Know, though, that if you do, then what you said was meaningless.