(I somehow hadn't noticed this when I replied to its successor. I kinda gave up on the discussion after reading the latter, but I'll take a look at this one anyway.)

I understand what you mean by "framing" (though I would dispute the, er, framing that "framing is a technique used to misinform people"; framing can be used for many reasons, which do not have to involve misinformation). What I don't understand is exactly what your complaint about my framing is; you're drawing some analogy with "the rights of women or PoC" but I don't understand what the analogy is supposed to be.

(There is a general pattern here in this discussion. You make very broad, general, vague accusations, and provide neither evidence nor explanation even when asked for it. E.g., a few lines below: "Once again: (misinformative) framing. It's kind of hard to avoid, eh...almost like it is intuitive." You don't say what it is that you think is misinformative. You don't say why you consider it, or anyone else should consider it, misinformative. This is annoying and rude and unproductive. It is not possible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who just repeatedly says "you're wrong", which is essentially what you are doing.)

(This general pattern overlaps substantially with another one, which I also think is annoying and rude and unproductive: you are constantly gesturing vaguely towards things you clearly wish to be considered bad, without ever being specific enough that e.g. anyone could possibly refute what you say even if you were completely wrong. Lots of "isn't that weird? I wonder why it might be" in the place of "this is evidence of X, because Y".)

> people of your kind

I don't think I have ever once seen any productive discussion with someone who used that phrase or any of its equivalents.

> slip-ups that reveal that only(!) lack of belief is not actually true.

OK, this I already addressed, albeit very briefly. Let me go into more detail now you've clarified that this is your complaint.

If someone says "I am an atheist", and "atheism simply means not positively believing in any gods", and also "I positively believe that there are no gods", there is nothing inconsistent about that. (Nor, of course, if e.g. they don't explicitly say the last of those.)

The situation is exactly parallel to this: If someone says "I am British", and "British means coming from somewhere in the British Isles", and also "I am Welsh", then nothing about this is inconsistent. If you are Welsh then you are also British; it is not inconsistent, or dishonest, to give a less-than-maximally detailed description of yourself.

Now, if one of these people says (not just "atheism means ..." but) "I do not positively disbelieve in gods, I merely don't positively believe in them" and then it turns out that they do positively disbelieve in gods, then sure, they're being inconsistent, and maybe that shows that they're dishonest or stupid or whatever. I don't spend as much time as you apparently do watching atheists debating theists, so maybe I've missed some examples of that, but I don't think I've seen any.

> This concept of an absolute scale is absolutely crucial here.

If it's so crucial, it seems odd to me that while you are very insistent that we accept the existence of such a scale you seem curiously reluctant to say anything about what it actually is.

We have already established (though you didn't like the way I framed the issue, on grounds I have not been able to understand) that we agree that human reasoning falls considerably short of what might be possible for some hypothetical superintelligence -- gods, super-advanced aliens, future AIs, or whatever. This is clearly not enough; you think I should be saying something further. Perhaps something along the lines of "my reasoning abilities are less than 1% of the way from zero to hypothetical god-level superintelligence". But for any statement with that sort of concreteness to make sense, we would need some actual way of quantifying this stuff. That seems very difficult to me and I don't know of any credible way of doing it; when I pointed that out before your response was to sneer at my alleged lack of intellectual curiosity.

But if you want us to look at human intelligence and rationality on an absolute scale, we first need to have an absolute scale. You write as if you know of one, and have done the relevant calculations, and found (most of?) the human race wanting. But you won't tell us what your scale is, or how you assess anyone's place on it.

> I was only raising the question

Yes, and you have adopted this strategy over and over in this discussion. It may be a rhetorically effective strategy -- it lets you lord it over whomever you're talking to, "only raising the question" of this, that, and the other, vaguely implying that they're wrong about everything, never making any statement of your own concrete enough to be refuted or even really addressed. But it makes actual communication almost impossible; it means that if you're right about something and I'm wrong, I can't learn from you because you never actually say what you mean, and if you're wrong about something and I'm right, you can't learn from me because we never get to see your actual opinions and arguments.

(I don't think it really is rhetorically effective; my guess is that if anyone else is still reading this, they are mostly not impressed. I could, of course, be wrong.)