The problem with Atheism is no one will agree on the basic ground rules for a conversation. For example if I say I'm not an Atheist because I don't care to subscribe to a specific definition of god upon which to focus my lack of belief, I get accused of propping up a Straw Man.

It's clear that religion exists, it's impossible to find a human culture that lacks it. But the minute you try to put the discussion on a more rigorous footing the process seems to fall apart, hence the term pseudophilosophy. Carl Sagan was described as not wanting to be called an Atheist because that already requires knowledge that has not been introduced into the conversation. I guess that makes him an epistemological agnostic but even that choice of terminology can be challenged.

So where is one expected to go with this apparent dilemma?

There is no dillema. Probe it, or GFTO. It works with anything: science, self-called "engineers" applying for a job, trials in order to be guilty or not... easy.

If someone says "gold cures cancer", everyone and his mom would think he is a nut, unless that's true there's no proof that gold cures anything. The same with religion.

>It's clear that religion exists, it's impossible to find a human culture that lacks it.

So what. A lot of tribes had chamans too, and no magic did work, ever. Look up for "cargo cult" in order how religions works, that's the biggest slap to arrogant American Christian ever, because it works like a huge reality mirror, kinda like: hey, look at that bullshit these Australians are believeing, think for a while on your own bullshit from the Stone Age, because these people with no knowledge of the world (no one in China have heard of Jesus until very recent times (relatively) in the late Middle Ages, so maybe it's religion and god wasn't as Universal as they tought).

The same with Native Americans, no matter North of South. No one have heard of crazy world-wide floods, or whatever.

Also, Bible's great flood was a rehash from the Mesopotapian tales, whose legend maybe date back to the end of the Ice Age.

Ditto with Roman/Greek Gods: if you believe in Zeus/Iupiter, most people will tell you to head an asylum, yet the Judeo-Christian God looks "right". It's just hypocrisy. And fear.

Religion is an aspect of the human condition. The question of whether any particular religious belief can be thought of as "true" needs to be unpacked in a careful way.

As soon as someone claims that a thing "exists" in a way that can't be demonstrated, I can choose to be polite but ignore the claim. That's trivial.

What's more complicated is the entire idea of substance dualism, and how human consciousness can apprehend an idea that has nothing tangible to back it up.

These questions matter, and are worth unpacking, regardless of how you happen to feel about religion.

Does that make sense?

It seems like this is your argument:

1) If some religions are false, then all religions are false

2) Pacific-tribe cargo cults and ancient Greek mythology are clearly false, plus there are some stories in the Bible that are hard to swallow

3) Therefore God doesn't exist

Is that right?

No, but most proof look the Bible as implausible, biased, full of contradictions and then contrary to what science have been told since millenia.

Your response proves my point.

You didn't prove your god.

There are many proofs:

- God is greater than the greatest imaginable thing, so must exist (this one is proven to be logically valid with computational theorem prover, and Bertrand Russell even said it was sound at one point in his life)

- the world is intelligently designed

- there must be a first cause, and that must be God

- nothing in this world is perfect so there must be a transcendently perfect being

- we can only be satisfied be an infinite being, so the object of our desire lies beyond this world

- moral laws exist and require a law giver

- our mind is not reducible to our body, and must have been created by an even greater being

- jesus existed, claimed to be God, and rose from the dead according to reliable historical documentation

Off the top of my head

On the other hand it is impossible to prove atheism, you cannot prove a negative

So we are left with theism and a lot of proofs, and atheism which is inherently incapable of being proven

Seems the rational choice leans towards theism

You and I have very different ideas of what the word ‘proof’ means. I have no doubt this is how it looks to you. From where I sit, we have theism and a lot of nebulous thought experiments that gel with the way religious minds already think, and atheism which is simply the default until the day God decides to grace us with a press conference.

There are tight logical proofs. Note I point out the ontological argument is now validated by computer. I am merely sketching them above. I also disagree atheism is the default. As Einstein says, simplify as much as possible, but no further. Atheism is incapable of explaining reality as we experience it. While simple it lacks explanatory power. Saying atheism is the default due to simplicity is like saying nothing is a better explanation than something because nothingness is simpler than something, which is clearly the wrong way to go about picking theories. Monotheism is our most parsinomous theory to date.

> There are tight logical proofs.

No, there aren't.

> Note I point out the ontological argument is now validated by computer.

While an invalid argument is useless, a valid one can still be no good.

Here is a logically valid argument:

Major Premise. all who post claims of proofs of God’s existence on HN should be killed.

Minor Premise. yters posted a claim of proof of God’s existence on HN

Conclusion. Therefore, yters should be killed.

Now, if I claimed I proved you should be killed, you would probably object, and claim there was a problem with the major premise. And I think many people would agree with you, but the correctness of the premises isn't relevant to logical validity, only soundness.

Well that's the problem with all proofs. If the premises are false the proof is not sound. That doesn't preclude the proof being tight, i.e. as in well reasoned and logically argued. Outside of mathematics you will be hard pressed to find a proof where someone doesn't disagree with a premise or two. And even within math we have intuitionists and constructivists claiming things like proof by negation is invalid. So if your criterion for solid proof is one that everyone agrees with, you are bound to be perpetually disappointed. On the other hand if your criterion is proofs that highly intelligent people find convincing after fully understanding the argument, then I again submit to you the ontological argument which even Russell claimed was sound at one point in his life before walking that back and saying it is wrong for some unknown reason.

> Well that's the problem with all proofs

No, its the problem with pure logical proofs, which is why for statements about reality rather than abstract relations of concepts, empirical proofs (despite being less absolute) are generally preferred.

> the ontological argument

Since you have merely waved at and sketched the argument, let me do the same it's demolition: existence is not a predicate.

I guess that means we cannot say anything exists. Sounds sensible to me.

> God is greater than the greatest imaginable thing, so must exist (this one is proven to be logically valid with computational theorem prover)

Logical validity is a very weak thing to demonstrate (it is trivial to construct a logically valid argument for any position), to be a proof you'd need to show soundness. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/#:~:text=A%20deductive%20argumen....

Sure, if I give an axiom that “The greatest imaginable thing must exist”, “God is an imaginable thing”, and “God is greater than any other imaginable thing”, a computational theorem prover will validate “God must exist”.

This doesn’t prove God exists. It just proves either God exists or one of your axioms are wrong.

> the world is intelligently designed

That’s not a proof, or even proven, just an unprovable conjecture.

> there must be a first cause, and that must be God

Those are two unproven claims, (“There must be a First Cause” and “If there is a First Cause, it must be God”), not a proof.

> nothing in this world is perfect so there must be a transcendently perfect being

That’s just a non-sequitur. Even taking the premise to be true, it does not (at all) lead to the conclusion.

> we can only be satisfied be an infinite being, so the object of our desire lies beyond this world

The “we can only be satisfied” part is unproven (and unprovable), and the other part doesn’t follow from it. That there must exist something that fulfills are desire to be satisfied is wishful thinking, not some kind of logical necessity, so even an infinite being was necessary for that that doesn’t mean such a being must exist.

> moral laws exist and require a law giver

All “moral laws” which provably exist are attributable to a huan lawgiver. Any other “moral laws” are speculative, as is any other lawgiver.

> our mind is not reducible to our body, and must have been created by an even greater being

The premise is not true, and isn’t even related to the conclusion. If it were true it would require a mind to have some nonphysical component, not “an even greater being” as a creator.

> jesus existed, claimed to be God, and rose from the dead according to reliable historical documentation

None of that is true based on “reliable historical documentation”

I recommend you look into these things more carefully, e.g. read the wikipedia article on historicity of Jesus. I am just throwing out sketches of the many different well know arguments for theism that atheist believe they don't even have to engage with to have an intellectually robust position. Well fine, anyone can believe anything they want to believe, but that doesn't mean they've put any careful thought into their position.