I don't think you understand either the parent or me. The point is that the majority of people do something wrong that the author is trying to help prevent, so just by virtue of that being true it stops being "stupid and obvious".
> We can all agree that something huge is missing if you don’t learn algebra or addition.
We can indeed all agree on a separate topic, but that does nothing for the topic we are actually discussing. The core of your entire argument is that somehow FP is fundamental to solving complexity, you seem to think that everybody already agrees with this. We don't.
> Even the atheist is a zealot
No, he is not. Being an atheist or not is a completely internal world view, being a zealot implies being vocal and aiming to convert or convince others.
> The only way to not be a zealot is to be a zealot about being unsure of everything
No this is also not true, see above. Things are not as black and white as you think.
> People insinutated a lot of things because I used religion as an analogy.
The point of an analogy is to improve the discussion through clarity, you made a bad analogy and in doing so made the discussion worse and less clear.
> The ONLY point I was trying to make is that a majority or large group of people believing in or doing plan A doesn't mean shit for plan A.
Which, again, is missing the point. The majority is already judged by the parent, namely: they are doing something wrong. Hence it does not matter that the majority is not always right, the point of the parent is already that the majority is wrong. You are trying to argue for something that nobody brought up, you are arguing against the statement: "the book is good because everybody is doing what it describes". Nobody is saying that, and so you're arguing into the void.