hey Jack — regarding the logical equivalency of believers & non-believers, I am prompted to re-frame the exercise in terms of climate change believers and deniers:
In the halls of power on Capital Hill today, it is necessary to be a skeptic of man-made climate change. Dave is an political rising star. Therefore Dave must become a denier of man-made climate change.
Climate change deniers are being ostracized from serious academic discourse. Sally wants to have a successful career in academia. Therefore Sally must accept the academic arguments that underpin climate change.
If the experiment you referenced was repeated using these statements, it would likely show that climate change believers & deniers are just as susceptible to cognitive biases based on the views they already hold.
Does it prove that either group is more logical than the other? Does it prove that either is more correct than the other?
Bottom line — I don’t have to take a stand on who is more logical, atheists vs. religious folks; climate change believers vs. deniers. But I can say that these theoretical exercises yield no conclusions about the views of Camp A vs Camp B, beyond using formal logic constructs to lay cognitive traps that all mortals will stumble on.