Ah, there is so much to unpack here, with respect to this. Start cooking your Sunday roast, it may be finished when you reach the end of this.
Let’s start with the contrast between the diligence exerted by those of us who paid attention in class, and the indolence all too frequently encountered here among mythology fanboys. There is, of course, a reason for the latter, namely, that they were raised in an environment where the learning process consisted of “sit down, shut up, listen to what the pastor is saying, and treat it as fact”. Which is basically what happens during sermonising. At no point in the religious indoctrination business, are the mythology fanboys ever expected to question what they are told, and indeed, being too inquisitive is presented as a “sin”, right at the start of their favourite Bronze Age mythology.
So, as a corollary of being raised in the above environment, when their pastor begins trotting out the usual malicious stereotypes about “atheists”, none of the mythology fanboys question any of this. Instead, they simply regard anyone they learn of as being an atheist, as conforming to said malicious stereotypes. They certainly never consider the possibility that atheists are as individual as any other human beings, but duplicitous homogenisation has been a part of religious indoctrination, ever since the first charlatan in human history persuaded those around him, to believe what he told them about fantastic magic entities. Which, history teaches us, usually involved a heavy agenda of control for personal gain.
Those of us who were fortunate enough not to endure this process during childhood, who instead were given the gift of a proper education, and had the good sense to pay attention to said education, learned an entirely different process. Namely, we were subject to a pedagogical system that presented facts and concepts to learn, but then encouraged us in addition to find out for ourselves, that said facts and concepts were genuine, and provided us, step by step, with the cognitive tools required to do just this.
Indeed, in the past, I provided here an exposition on why a work bearing the title The Children’s Encyclopaedia, edited by one Arthur Mee, failed in its mission to turn me into a good little English follower of God, King And Country™, that is relevant here. The post in question being this one. I’ll provide the relevant quote therefrom, that should be informative at this juncture:
So, as a result of being taught the basic concept of intellectual diligence, and being introduced to a broad spectrum of ideas, of a sort that many mythology fanboys don’t even know exist, we’re equipped to take a proper approach to questions - and, for that matter, assertions, a topic that the regulars here know that I’ve devoted many column inches to here. I won’t repeat that exposition at this juncture - the curious can find my various posts on the matter with ease.
But, what I will do, as an example of the approach taken here by the people who paid attention in class, is note that I am on public record in numerous locations, as not asserting that a god type entity in the most general sense does not exist. Those locations include this forum, where, wait for it, I have expounded on this matter on no less than ten occasions, and they’re merely the ones I could find in a quick perusal of my past activity. The posts in question being:
Post #1 (which also includes one of my expositions on the proper treatment of assertions)
Post #2 (which includes an exposition on axioms)
Post #4 (which includes a link to my exposition on how recent developments in cosmological physics impacts the whole “god question”)
Post #5 (this one is a multi part exposition on various relevant topics)
Post #6 (another multi part exposition, including demolition of mythology fanboy canards about atheism)
Post #7 (more mythology fanboy canards dealt with in addition)
Post #8 (yet more mythology fanboy canards dealt with in addition)
Post #9 (and even more tiresome mythology fanboy canards dealt with in addition)
Post #10 (along with another exposition on the impact of cosmological physics upon the “god question”).
Now, from the first of those posts, I provide the following quote (which is pretty much repeated in all the others), viz:
I think this should settle the matter in my case, don’t you? You will find that numerous other regulars here adopt a parallel stance.
However, one issue on which we can be certain, is that entities asserted to possess contradictory or absurd properties, can be safely dismissed without further ado. I almost certainly address this matter in some detail in one of the above posts. This issue has lethal import for mythology fanboys, because the numerous mythologies humans have invented, all contain within their pages, assertions about the existence of fantastic magic entities. Said fantastic magic entities are all asserted to possess contradictory or absurd properties, and therefore, all of them can be safely dismissed. You’ll find this covered in Post #1 above (and probably at least one of the others).
This does not, as I’ve explained before (almost certainly in at least one of the above posts), rule out a candidate for the “god role” that [1] does not originate from a mythology, and [2] is either consonant with known physics, or provides consistent extensions thereto. Before you complain about [2], bear in mind that we have ZERO evidence for magic, and can therefore rule that out, noting along the way that the term “supernatural” is merely a fancy way of saying “magic”, in a manner that its proponents hope no one notices.
But, as again noted in Post #1 above, even a sensible candidate for the “god role”, as opposed to the cartoon magic men regarded as being real by various mythology fanboys, only enters the picture the moment we have [b]evidence[b] for the existence of said entity. Until said evidence arrives, we may safely operate as if said entity does not exist, just as humans safely operated as if entities such as electrons didn’t exist, until evidence told us otherwise.
I have also expounded in detail (it should not surprise you by now), on what would happen if evidence for a genuinely existing god type entity was presented in the very near future. Again, Post #1 from the above list covers this matter, and I suspect others in the list do also. I’ll let you find out for yourself by perusing the links (the regulars will see what I did there).
By the time you reach this paragraph, you should have been made abundantly aware, that much diligence has been devoted to the relevant questions, and others here can probably, if they’re willing to spend the time, providing examples from their own oeuvres. In my case, I also maintain an extensive offline database of my writing, so that I can cross-reference quickly when required, not least because, as I stated in my opening gambit, mythology fanboys have a habit of being indolent, and failing to check if their opening posts are covering ground that has been repeatedly trodden upon here often.
Indeed, one of the recurrent themes here, is the manner in which ill-informed, complacent and manifestly naive mythology fanboys, announce their presence on the forum, with a wall of text post, which they consider to be some sort of discoursive killer drone strike for their particular brand of mythology fanboyism. Only to discover to their shock and dismay, that we’ve seen their drivel before upon multiple occasions, and can unleash the canard demolitions in an instant. The manner in which low-IQ American Christians in particular come here, bringing peashooters to a nuclear war, is sardonically amusing at times.
If the tone of the above strikes you as harsh, it’s the product of bitter experience over 15 years. In particular, experience dealing with that mendacious and frequently wilfully ignorant subset of mythology fanboys, the small army of propagandists for American corporate creationism. Whom I regard with freely admitted scorn and derision, not least because of the manner in which they manifestly regard a full blown Commandment from their god, prohibiting lying, as discardable whenever this suits their sleazy apologetic convenience. This should inform you of the background leading to my launching into Haldane Mode frequently here.
And thus ends another of my editorial pieces. Which are savoured with relish by those here with a very particular sense of humour.