If theism , the belief in god or many gods is 'obviously' taught via nurture and cultural environments, then simplified into a person saying to you -'there is a god -hence the life and the universe + additional mysticism' or anything along these lines
Then in terms of the atheist response of possibly
' i dont believe you know what your talking about' -the ambiguous agnostic ; 'what is your proof and rational discourse' etc . and here enters the many unfruitful atheist vs theist discussions
whereas it could be said
'you don't know what you are talking about'- this line of certainty as gnostic . Which for myself is completely acceptable.
In terms of scientific evidence to 'squash' religions line of argument is almost impossible as it constantly adapts and ''evolves'' around science in one way or another, even when it refutes something it may once have claimed. (i think there are cases of this in islam regards to the qur'an.)
The line of gnostic atheism is from cultural, anthropological evidence of religion: simply as a almost universal method of understanding the world, meaning, purpose and origin of humanity. Using faith systems rather than knowledge systems.
That by trying to debunk religion on its terms in regards to 'prove god doesn't exist, blah blah blah, ', the issue isn't that you are forced into lack of knowledge regards to there claims towards transcendental beings and non physical realms , but that we can debunk why they believe that and propose such arguments in the first place.
please correct any oversimplifications and absurdities
Then in terms of the atheist response of possibly
' i dont believe you know what your talking about' -the ambiguous agnostic ; 'what is your proof and rational discourse' etc . and here enters the many unfruitful atheist vs theist discussions
whereas it could be said
'you don't know what you are talking about'- this line of certainty as gnostic . Which for myself is completely acceptable.
In terms of scientific evidence to 'squash' religions line of argument is almost impossible as it constantly adapts and ''evolves'' around science in one way or another, even when it refutes something it may once have claimed. (i think there are cases of this in islam regards to the qur'an.)
The line of gnostic atheism is from cultural, anthropological evidence of religion: simply as a almost universal method of understanding the world, meaning, purpose and origin of humanity. Using faith systems rather than knowledge systems.
That by trying to debunk religion on its terms in regards to 'prove god doesn't exist, blah blah blah, ', the issue isn't that you are forced into lack of knowledge regards to there claims towards transcendental beings and non physical realms , but that we can debunk why they believe that and propose such arguments in the first place.
please correct any oversimplifications and absurdities