Hey Scott, thank you for making time to read and comment. There are a lot of interesting things you pointed out.
To begin with, I had to google what obfuscation mean because it was the first time I heard this world, which by the way, sounds quite funny. My intention was definitely not to make things obscure just to present a perspective, not an assertion. However, I must point out that I never said that atheism means without religion.
I see the state as a myth, and because enough people believe in it, they act as it is real therefore it becomes real through reinforced acts. You get a fine because we all believe that it is dangerous to drive with more than 100 km/h (I don’t know what that means in miles) and we all agree it is dangerous for you and us. There is no natural law that forbids you from doing so but is man’s law and its authority is generated by the number of people believes in it. Also, belief systems are based on values, beauty can also be a value so I would say my comparison is still standing.
When it comes to science, I think things become tricky because what e believe today is true, tomorrow proves false, but if it weren’t for our inquisitive nature we would not have liver transplants or the internet. So we can’t say for sure something is true. Also, as far as I remember, the simple act of observing may change the outcome of an experiment. I didn’t mean to disgrace Stephen Hawking in any way, I do see him as a remarcable human.
The point of this article, was to propose the idea that we can’t live outside of a narrative, call it state or religion, and for that, you have to believe in it, to believe in an idea.