Look, I understand what you're getting at regarding epistemological foundations. Yes, we all operate on some basic assumptions about reality, consciousness, and the reliability of our senses. But there's a meaningful difference between accepting base axioms necessary for any kind of knowledge (like "my sensory experiences generally correspond to reality") and accepting specific supernatural claims that contradict observable evidence.

When I say "can be dismissed," I mean exactly that - claims that contradict known physics, make untestable assertions, or rely on circular logic can be provisionally rejected until evidence is presented. That's not faith - it's methodological naturalism.

You're right that I'm working with consensus reality and scientific heuristics. But these approaches have demonstrated predictive power and practical utility. They've given us everything from smartphones to space travel. Religious claims haven't demonstrated similar utility beyond social/psychological benefits that can be explained naturalistically.

No, I don't think you're dumb or confused. You're making a sophisticated point about epistemological humility. But I worry this kind of radical skepticism, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to a philosophical paralysis where we can't meaningfully distinguish between well-supported and unsupported beliefs.