(General note: I will respond to arguments and evidence and so forth; I will not respond to mere sneering, beyond noting that it's there.)

I don't understand your complaint about "this framing". Exactly what parallel with civil rights are you drawing?

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". (Do not try to pretend that you were not intending to talk down to me; of course you were. And still are.)

Yes, I too would like more money and time and effort going into education and less into weapons.

It is not relevant which of us has consumed more Dawkins or Carroll or whatever. If you think I am wrong in thinking that it is obvious to those people that they are finite and fallible and so forth, then show some evidence rather than just saying you know better.

In so far as I understand what complaint you are making about scientific-type atheists, I think it is unreasonable. 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.) 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.

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 -- 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.)

I don't think I agree with (what I take to be) your estimation of how bad their errors are. I might be able to be more concrete if you were more concrete, but you seem determined not to be. 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, 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.

Your suggestion that there might be better modes of education that effectively stop people making (as I take it you mean) broad classes of cognitive errors is interesting. Do you have specific suggestions for what sort of education might bring that about? Do you have specific reasons for thinking it would work? My impression is that the more obvious ways of trying to help people not make cognitive errors tend to be pretty ineffective.

(I think people who pay attention to cognitive errors and try to make fewer of them do, in fact, tend to make fewer of them -- though I don't have objective quantitative evidence for this, only casual observation over the years -- but I don't think it's mostly because learning about cognitive errors and trying to make fewer of them is very effective, it's more because the sort of person who does that is the sort of person who is already likely to be making fewer cognitive errors.)

Thank you for clarifying that you are not making a claim beyond "scientific materialists suffer from the very same delusions and faith based thinking the religious people they mock do". I'm not sure how much we disagree about this -- it depends on just what "the very same" means. (Obviously they're not literally the exact same; if you think they're just as bad then we disagree but it doesn't seem like the sort of thing it's easy to give clear-cut evidence of; if you are claiming only "cognitive errors with similar patterns, though different in detail and possibly less often and less severely" then we probably agree, though I think we disagree about how much sneering at the scientific materialists this justifies.)

I completely agree with you that the general crapness of human thinking is a serious problem. I'm not sure whether we agree about what fraction of that problem is specifically about scientific materialists. You clearly feel (or, I guess, find it convenient to give the impression that you feel, but I'm happy to take this at face value) that I don't care about it enough, whereas you do; for my part, I am not convinced, and I don't think one can tell how much someone cares about human irrationality by how enthusiastically they sneer at other people on the internet.