No, I'm pretty sure that is dictionary-definition nihilism.

Alternatively, it was already true in Eisenhower's day. Like I don't need to be prophetic to say people need to be concerned about corporations data mining them, and using marketing so targeted and manipulative that they start to lose personal agency. It'll probably be more true in 30 years, but it's also true now.

Bullshit. People predicted that there were planets outside our solar system, and some contested that it was an oddity.

No evidence for thousands of years, then just over a decade ago, BOOM, demonstrated. You're just being intellectually lazy, here.

That's pretty crazy there, pal. Just an FYI.

Yeah, I know. That's why I said it was naive. Most people construct their ethics to minimize or maximize variables as a result of your choices. But a naive system that asserts that it's impossible to see all conclusions, and thus only takes responsibility for direct consequences of your own actions does indeed suggest complete nonviolence.

We're not raised atheist, most of us, you know, right?

And your brain doesn't morphologically change much after early development. I mean, I won't say you're wrong with certainty, but it seems less plausible.

Counterpoint: divine right of kings followed Christianity around for thousands of years.

Counterpoint 2: "Slaves, Obey your masters." Not a notion exactly extolling equality.

Counterpoint 3: Christianity definitely and clearly makes Jesus out to be better than other people.

N.B. "Love thy enemy" is probably a better citation for the argument you're trying to make.

On the other hand, evolution almost certainly selected for its existence in the first place as a means of causing eusocial behavior, a claim I lightly corroborate with the fact that that region of the brain is activated by communal experiences.

But now we're getting into lazy evo psych where I come up with ad-hoc explanations for things and use it to justify my biases. So I don't think I'm going to go out of my way to defend the claim.

A. The pope, in line with Catholic Orthodoxy, is not creationist. Not in the totally nutter, young earth science denialism sense, anyways.
B. Everyone believes at least a few objectively wrong things. Getting on religion for the grandiosity of the incorrect claims it makes just seems silly. In the end, big things matter less to be wrong about, not more.
C. It doesn't all come from "believing what they're told." It comes from personal feelings, intuition, common sense, and a host of other inputs as well. This is coming from a neurological perspective, not just hypothetical counter-argument. For example, there's a part of the brain responsible for causing religious experiences. Atheists tend to have much smaller brain regions for that.
D. If I should instead appeal to your ego: religiosity and intelligence both predict many of the same positive life outcomes, even though they, themselves, are inversely correlated. That's good reason to believe that religion is filling an important role for people who might be worse off without it. You can imagine yourself getting its benefits elsewhere.

Honestly the young earth creationist types(who are the only anti-science conservatives relevant in this case) don't pay that much attention to hard data and observational methodology at all. Certainly light that was moved magnetically over the course of billions of years of travel is not evidence that they'd be particular inclined to use, even in that case.

Their objections fall more into the category of dismissing things with "common sense" objections that reflect very little understanding of the idea being challenged.

Well, even the summary makes it complicated. The dust can account for 100% of the signal, and occam's razor suggests that's the best assumption for explaining their measurements. But dust can also cause other signals, and what science calls for here is an experiment that can differentiate the two hypotheses. Which sounds hard, because what can you measure changes in besides the light, which would be affected by magnetic dust?

Maybe neutrons? Or neutrinos(good luck)? The distinction might still be measurable.

Okay, this time I was being sarcastic.

Oh sure, everything I say is sarcastic. That's totally believable.

I think I see it now. Grandiosity as interchangeable with sarcastic hyperbole. Interesting.

Because absolutely any of what you just attributed to me is something I've ever said in any context whatsoever. Christ.

Let's focus on this, because I think you have me confused with a certain German philosopher. That's never been a sentiment I've expressed. Look at what you're trying to say: "Because you don't uncritically accept my religion, you're clearly religious." It makes no sense.

Like your sig says it's hard to reply meaningfully to your "questions" because they're built on implied assumptions that are so clearly contradictory, it's a bit like proving a square has 4 sides.

The only point I actually made in the post you're replying to is that people claim the systems of science are somehow discriminatory, and that they tend to be crazy. You didn't even begin to address that. Instead you addressed some imagined evil atheist you thought you could just rhetoric bomb. It's silly.