>>941000013
>Some atheist believe silly thing, therefore... uhhh.
An atheist is just someone without a belief in any God(s) (literally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_privative "a" + ΞΈΞ΅ΟΟ (theos/god)). Atheism doesn't necessitate any other beliefs, no matter how (pseudo)scientific or crazy, bar the few obvious presuppositions about existence that everyone, even believers, makes.
>There is no meaningful difference between taking a pastor at his word and taking a scientist at his word.
Yes, there is, and it depends on what you're taking their word about. If a geologist tries to tell me about what a church that he doesn't attend's beliefs are, then I'm more inclined to actually look it up than if a pastor told me about their church's beliefs; different people have different specialties, intelligence, knowledge, etc, and I can evaluate my trust of a person and their beliefs and claims based on these factors.
>Deference to "science" as curated and presented by scientists is functionally the same as deference to a holy book.
The global science community doesn't have any, scripture, prophets, or sacraments. How are you suggesting that science is anything like religion?
>They even have their own terms for their own heretics, like "science denier."
Except, commonly, those science denying views were actually science favoring views at one point as in the case of geocentrism (perhaps even the future). Science adapts to new evidence, religion doesn't. Would you prefer "evidence denier"?
Why do you attempt to ridicule science by comparing it to religion? If religion is respectable and sound, then why are you so quick to vilify blind faith, doctrine, scripture, and the out-casting of heretics? This behavior is clearly driven by a need to equivocate science and religion and to bring science down to the level of religious faith; "If we all have faith, and we're equal, then you're claims about reality aren't worth more than mine".
