So that’s an interesting point.
What does resurrection mean - and at what point is something a faith-based statement.
The meaning of "resurrect" is in the dictionary. The only "naturalistic" way to use the word is metaphorically, like when you "resurrect a long dead cause". Redefining religious concepts till they seem "naturalized" looks something like "enabling" to me.
But given my interpretation, I do not believe SIB’s “faith statement” is anything like Learners in any way, and so yes, I would argue that Learner is wrong to try to tether them together as like statements.
My interpretation went a little differently...
Learner's error was the tu toque: you people believe crazy shit so whattaya doing criticizing my crazy shit?
But I agree with him that there are postchristian secularists whose beliefs are as batshit insane as his. A case in point are the transhumanists taking the christian mythology but "naturalizing" it with tech-speak so that it'll seem "scientifically plausible". To make it appeal more they present it as "just advances in medical science". But the frozen bodies they're talking about aren't children pulled out of a cold lake, but rich people pulled out of refrigerators.
SIB's faith statement looked like some of that slipping into the convo. Learner spotted it as nutty... and I think it's fucking nutty too. So to me pointing at someone else's shared nuttiness is not the worst thing in that post by Learner that got so much reaction.