(Aside: this is a very fun argument, thanks for your grit and persistence! As Ludmilla Drago ~said: "I hope, we can be friends. After all, we are sportsmen, not soldiers").
> I don't understand your complaint about "this framing". Exactly what parallel with civil rights are you drawing?
Framing is a technique used to misinform people, which can cause harmful behavior to persist longer than necessary.
> Yes, there's an implicit "for me" on "it isn't tricky", just as there's an implicit "for you" when you say "here's the tricky part".
If something is tricky for at least one person, "it is tricky" is true[1] (in the "not false" sense - here lies very important, unexplored, and largely unknown/misunderstood territory).
If something is not tricky for at least one person, "it is not tricky" is not necessarily true (it is but one data point among billions).
[1] Look how potentially ~misleading my more correct version is; now consider the risk of having an entire planet of semi-aware but very powerful humans who think primarily in binary, but without the rigour or curiosity.
> (Do not try to pretend that you were not intending to talk down to me; of course you were. And still are.)
Oh, do I have to say it out loud? Yes, I am. But it's not "you" so much as it is your kind: Human - semi-aware, highly programmable, minimal capability of self-reflection. I to am one of these, but not all of these are the same, and all that is possible is not necessarily (and sometimes even rarely) attempted.
> Yes, I too would like more money and time and effort going into education and less into weapons.
Once again: (misinformative) framing. It's kind of hard to avoid, eh....almost like it is intuitive.
Man, could you imagine if human beliefs were affected by the words of other humans....imagine the calamity that could ensue!
> It is not relevant which of us has consumed more Dawkins or Carroll or whatever.
Incorrect: experiences train the mind, which affects the "reality" it generates, and believes (mistakenly, due to its training) is "the" reality.
> If you think I am wrong in thinking that it is obvious to those people that they are finite and fallible and so forth
A simple boolean is adequate to represent "are finite and fallible", and yes they gladly admit that they are more than zero (but not nearly as much as non-members of their ideology), but is it adequate to represent the full dimensionality of the situation?
> ...then show some evidence rather than just saying you know better.
Lack of evidence is a form of evidence: them having not written in depth on the shortcomings of science, at the object level. But then I shouldn't be too hard on them, all people of your kind tend not to do this..."putting one's best foot forward" (aka: intentional deceit) is core to the human psyche.
> In so far as I understand what complaint you are making about scientific-type atheists, I think it is unreasonable.
Of course, that's how "reality" works. And vice versa with me. An important difference though: insult members of the team I'm defending, and see if my reaction is the same as yours.
> You say that they point out bad thinking on the part of religious people; yes, they do. (You haven't, so far at least, suggested that they're wrong about that.)
I think I said it outright. If not, I do now: religious people are dumb, and not only because they are humans (all humans are dumb, they pride themselves on it).
> You say: booooo, they're hypocrites because they're making similar errors themselves. I say: they aren't claiming perfection, that's just something you made up; they are implicitly claiming to be doing better than the people they're criticizing, and I think they're generally right about that: they seem to me to be doing quite a lot better. I have the impression that you disagree, but I'm not sure how we could realistically resolve that disagreement.
Oh this pisses me off. How many times do we have to go through this. But then, here I am being naive!
> I can't help noticing that your argument seems to depend very strongly on what errors, and how bad, and how many of them, the likes of Dawkins and Carroll make when arguing about religion
That, but more so the delta between what they imply about themselves (measure their fan base's opinion!) vs what is true, on an absolute scale. If you refuse to or are unable to acknowledge that this notion of an absolute scale exists, then we (you, I, and overall humanity) are going to have trouble making (certain kinds of) progress.
> but that the nearest you've come to giving a concrete example of their alleged errors is an objection to the "atheism just means not positively believing in gods" thing. (And that when I asked for some clarification on this, you ignored me.)
Ok fair. I'm not going to go look for examples, but if one listens to them talk, very often they make logical/ontological slip-ups that reveal that only(!) lack of belief is not actually true.
If I was to give you some examples, I fully expect you wouldn't be able to resist dismissing it as {"you know what they mean", "you're being pedantic", "that isn't what they meant"...}. Most of the world runs on this phenomenon by the way. Speaking of which: hey, have you noticed how easily AI can mimic human speech? That's weird eh, I wonder why it is possible in the first place (as opposed to how it is implemented) .
> I don't think I agree with (what I take to be) your estimation of how bad their errors are.
This concept of an absolute scale is absolutely crucial here. If you do not conceptualize it properly, then I am likely going to sound like a delusional, raving madman. Let's try this angle: consider the general perception of "reality" (aka: the reality) of the average human prior to the rise of science. Is it not fair to say that they were:
1. confused?
2. unaware that they were confused (at least the magnitude and variety of ways)?
Then consider us: if we were confused, would we necessarily be able to tell? Or perhaps even worse: would we necessarily even have the ability to wonder (also: note that "have the ability to" is not a boolean)?
> I might be able to be more concrete if you were more concrete, but you seem determined not to be.
Shrewd (and correct) observation - this is a whole discussion in itself. That humans think so much in concrete form is a big part of the problem (and one of the most powerful rhetorical techniques in the atheist/scientists bag of tricks/heuristics).
> You've suggested a few times that I should take your word for it because you've watched a lot of videos with atheists in
"that I should take your word for it" is false, I was only raising the question of who has the bigger sample size, and stricter methods of inquiry/observation. (You will lose badly if you continue down this path.)
> but I'm afraid your argumentation here hasn't so far given me much reason to trust your assessment of the quality of their thinking.
Consider whether your confusion may play some role here.
"The medium is the message" is a famous saying. A fun question: on an absolute(!) scale of 1 to 10, how optimal do you believe aggregate of the mediums (plural) we are using here are for achieving high quality communication? I ask this question absolutely sincerely, it is core to the problem.