Like what arguments? I thought most atheist arguments essentially boil down to the burden of proof and falsifiability, or they take an anthropological approach to the origins of religion. Essentially, they don’t depend on theological arguments at all.
Like, “religion cannot provide any falsifiable evidence of its existence, hence it should not be believed” doesn’t involve theology at all, and “religion was invented by a priest class to control the population and maintain power” similarly doesn’t depend on theology. Neither are related to a specific religion, even.
To clarify, I’m not trying to start a theological argument here. I just literally don’t understand your perspective, but clearly I’m missing something based on both you posting it and others upvoting you. Am I just out of the loop about what people on the Internet argue about? (Granted, that’s quite possible; I haven’t been subscribed to /r/atheism in well over a decade.)
Like what arguments? I thought most atheist arguments essentially boil down to the burden of proof and falsifiability, or they take an anthropological approach to the origins of religion. Essentially, they don’t depend on theological arguments at all.
Like, “religion cannot provide any falsifiable evidence of its existence, hence it should not be believed” doesn’t involve theology at all, and “religion was invented by a priest class to control the population and maintain power” similarly doesn’t depend on theology. Neither are related to a specific religion, even.
To clarify, I’m not trying to start a theological argument here. I just literally don’t understand your perspective, but clearly I’m missing something based on both you posting it and others upvoting you. Am I just out of the loop about what people on the Internet argue about? (Granted, that’s quite possible; I haven’t been subscribed to /r/atheism in well over a decade.)