I encourage challenges to my own assertions and positions in order to check and see if there are any faults, but again strawmans do not good.
Problem is good faith. I have made quite clear I am outlining my affirmative not critiquing your affirmatives. I do so because I still think we tend to talk past each other. A stawman generally applies the other way due to showing 'bad faith'.
So let's talk about just that core argument:
I simply do not have a belief system. Of course, you can try to tell me that I do (have a belief system), but that will get you nowhere fast. But thats what theists do; they assume that everyone is like them.
My critique is pretty simple: I don't disagree. I just don't care that you feel that way.
The fact you think you do not have a belief system is evidence of nothing. I do think you have similar structure. I also think you're right it is difficult to impossible for me as not-you to tell you what you believe. I have your word verses my opinions.
I don't think you care either that I feel you have a belief system. Perhaps you find it rude. The reason, I am engaging further is I am interested in what you have instead of a belief system!
I am indifferent to your criticism, although who knows maybe you can catch an error I missed(so far not). I am looking for your alternatives. Not for god or religion. In general. The difference in language. The difference in cognition. I am interested in how you view the 'spiritual' topics exactly because you are ignostic and have a different outlook. Of course we are more tha same than different, but the difference is what is intresting.
Beyond that your interest in your hypothesis seems to ignore scientific method.
It does takes time to craft the right methodology.
So far you should be marking one for me being a non-believer who does not have secular belief system that replaces a religious belief system.
Correct. You have shown no signs of a secular religion within the confines of this thread or the previous one.
Your hypotheses for me is absolutely not true.
It's undetermined.
You can accept that or keep trying to dogmatically force me into your hypothesis but doing so will make it entirely invalid.
Why would I care that it's valid? My goal here is to better understand myself as to better interact with world and those I encounter in life. I accept what I observe. I obverse a claim you do not have a central belief, let alone a sacred one. I observe you say even if you did it still likely wouldn't become systematic nor dogmatic unless you let it.
I have not heard an alternative psychological model for faith, at least beyond general criticisms that my belief in God biases my logical deduction via dogmatic faithbased nature.
Again. What I call God, you may call mystery(everything). You may measure it with statistics or simply accept it. Whatever. The point is you do not think it is conscious or meaningful whereas I do. Further, I have highlighted that mystery and made it subjectively sacred. This servers for me a personal purpose.
I enjoy identifying structures and patterns. So I am always looking for similar structures and patterns in others. To compare and contrast. And if I like theirs better than mine. I integrate it.
In the end, no I do not accept your claim, but neither do I refute it. I find it an honest and valid challenge. I don't have enough data to really answer. I am however interested in that data, your opinions and exploring the ideas.
For now my opinion remains atheism / ignostic is a rebellion against authority due anger/pride and that secular religions I've observed in others appear in some form absent a 'supernatural' basis. Morally, most behaviours are determined by society/temperament and individually ego related negative-idenity such as atheism is always a disadvantage as one is more easily pulled in by the current. Antisocial belief systems of course remaining far greater moral danger due to their power to fight the current.
Ultimately these opinions could be proven right, wrong or modified. They are full of plenty of untested assumptions.That's life, the chance of them being wrong certainly not worth not holding or expressing strong opinions. I am not going to respect a person any less for a disagreement. I argue and I improve. The greatest power of truth is its ability to overpower falsehood. I trust, if I am honest in my opinions, seek honesty in others, conflicts will always give way to greater truths.
I will say you are a tad dogmatic about logic. Not to the level of religion our anything, but it does give the impression you learned nothing in this whole exchange, but then maybe I missed something and that is the allure which will have me continue to explore outlooks different from my own. I do question though its utility if more obstacle than tool.