Question

[Crossless2.0]

I suspect most atheists understand the proper use of 'prove', so you'll find that this isn't a widespread thing among atheists. Remember, 'atheist' -- like 'theist' -- pertains to belief or lack thereof, not knowledge. Proof doesn't really enter into it.


Some people don't see any value or integrity in believing risible and unverifiable claims. Go figure. 

It's not like the world is overrun with people who came to their sense of the divine by way of Spinoza, to take one example. Scratch a theist, and nine times out of ten you'll find someone who believes utter horseshit based on some story they read in a 'special' book. Explain what that has to do with conscientious intellectual inquiry. Honesty. Integrity.

I'll wait.

When you say "special book" are you referring to rhe Holy Bible?

Among others.

Why do you call a book that someone believes in horseshit?

I didn't. I was referring to particular beliefs that people hold based on certain books. The Bible is one such source. There are others. Credulity is no virtue.

My beef isn't with holy books or even necessarily those who wrote them centuries ago. My issue is with grown-ass 21st Century adults who willingly shut off their critical faculties and read badly, just because they somehow got it in their heads that this particular book must be approached differently than any other.

Nietzsche: When a book and a head come into contact and one makes a hollow sound, is it necessarily the book?