> since in fact if you sincerely declare that you have no positive belief in any gods then that does pretty much mean that you in fact have no such belief.

If one declares one's mind to operate in a specific way, it operates that way? How does that work? And what should one think about the plentiful evidence available online of Atheists (Scientists, Rationalists, Experts, etc) demonstrating that their perceived/intended cognition isn't how their actual cognition works? Shall we ignore it?

I am pointing to a genuinely interesting phenomenon here....it is always and everywhere, right in front of (behind?) our noses. Perhaps there's something about it that makes it ~not possible to see it?

> If all you're saying is that some people make a lot of fuss about being rational, informed by evidence, etc., and then fail to be sufficiently rational, informed by evidence, etc.

It isn't, and the evidence of that is right there above.

> well, yes, people are fallible and think too highly of themselves, and I expect that state of affairs to continue at least until the Glorious Transhuman Future, should any version of that ever arrive, and probably beyond.

This is an interesting and common (a literal philosophy professor succumbed to it under testing not more than a week ago) behavior when the idea of improving upon cultural defaults is suggested: framing it as an uninteresting, "everyone knows" fact of life, or an absurd strawman, or both.

Out of curiosity: do you ever observe patterns of cognitive behavior in (all!) Humans? It's really quite interesting, I highly recommend it!

> I don't see any particular reason to think that atheists overestimate themselves more than theists do.

Have you gone looking for it?

Regardless: this is not the point of contention, let's try to avoiding sliding the topic.

> Also, I think more highly of e.g. Sean Carroll's rationality than it seems you do, and I see absolutely no reason to think that he isn't genuinely attempting, with more success than most, to apply logic and critical thinking to evidence.

The point isn't whether he's better than most, the point is that he suffers from the very same problems he mocks others for - it is usually to a lesser degree, perhaps, but on an absolute scale, how bad is he?

It seems to me that Theists, Conspiracy Theorists, Trump supporters, all the usual suspects are always fair game for criticism, but when the same is done to The Right People, for some reason that's inappropriate, if not outright disallowed. And yet: is openness to criticism not often held up as why these superior disciplines are superior?

> If you claim he's just mouthing those words and thinks that saying them makes him rational, then I would be interested to know on what grounds you think so.

More like: "mouthing those words and thinking that he is rational" (in an ~absolute sense, as opposed to more rational).

> Also also, although I don't find Richard Dawkins super-impressive when he argues against religion[1], if you think he isn't substantially more rational and more evidence-led than most of the people he argues with[2] then I fear you're severely overstating his shortcomings.

To me, his debates are like the move Dumb and Dumber. Dawkins is dumb, his opponents are typically dumber. Have you ever seen him go up against someone with some mental horsepower? I haven't, but check out this video with NDT opining on philosophy, in discussion with Kurt Jaimungal (a heavyweight in my books):

"Philosophers Are USELESS!" Neil & Curt Clash on Physics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye9OkJih3-U

How embarrassing. But also useful - Neil (and Rich, and to a lesser degree Sean) are like walking poster boys for the phenomenon I'm discussing.