Names and faces to bikes

leeww
When someone is convinced, that is: when a notion is held with certainty, that it is indisputably the case, we label it as 'fact'.

then you're saying that whether or not something is a 'fact' depends on the mental state of the believer - but people are fallible and can be guilty of faulty reasoning, people can hold certain beliefs with absolute conviction which would commonly be labelled as 'incorrect'. For example, I could be absolutely 100% sure that the Earth is flat but that would hardly make it a fact.

For a statement about the physical world to be a fact, it would have to have the status, essentially, of an extremely well verified theory, where there was such a weight of supporting evidence, possibly including the everyday experiences of millions of people, that it would be extremely unlikely that the 'fact' could ever be contradicted. The other way for something to be a fact is for it to be a formal statement which is basically
incapable of being wrong because it concerns things whose definitions we create, the best example being
mathematical statements like 'a square has 4 sides' or '5 is a prime number'.

The idea that 'facts are the preserve of the inerrant religious/supernatural thinkers' refers, I think, to the first type of 'fact' (the ones which rely on evidence and are essentially theories) since strictly speaking, they can never be proved absolutely incontravertably correct - like scientific theories, they can be proved incorrect
(by a single experiment) but never proved correct. So, if you hold some notion about the physical world to absolutely correct, then you are guilty of faulty reasoning. But for many practical purposes, the difference between 99.99999... % sure and 100% sure is negligible so we may as well carry on calling such notions 'facts' in everyday life (if not in cycling forum philosophy discussions...)