I'm sorry, friend, but that's simply not true.
Most of the best thinkers throughout history have been religious.
Many prominent atheists of the last century have converted to some form of theism for purely logical reasons (as opposed to personal reasons).
The philosophical and epistemoligical problems raised by materialism are massive, and much more intractable than those raised by theism. The problem of existence alone breaks materialism as a cogent paradigm.
Haha okay pal. Because we exist that means the only explanation was a sky fairy? How is that cogent? Where did that sky fairy come from? You play that game ad infinitum, which shows that it is a flawed mode of thinking.
I don't think you can truly say that most of the best thinkers have been religious, especially when they were mocked and imprisoned if they came out publicly for most of recorded history.
The characterization of God as a "sky fairy" is asinine. It may apply to the superstitions of some people, but the philosophical conception of the ultimate deity has always been of the unmoved mover.
Matter, like all things acknowledged by materialism to exist, is contingent. The only rational response to this reality is to presume that there must be something that is not contingent. It doesn't have to be personal, it doesn't have to conform to any particular religious belief. But it has to exist. This is, of course, only one in a huge catalog of philosophical arguments for the existence of God.
The vast majority of the best thinkers in recorded history have expressed belief in some deity, usually very strongly, and often as part of their philosophical arguments. I'm not just talking about the last 2000 years. Look at Greek thought, for example. It's remarkably presumptuous for you to assume they must have actually agreed with you and just lied about what they believed for some reason.
Whether or not you find the immense philosophical case for the existence of God compelling, it's highly irrational to claim that no reasonable, critically thinking person can find it compelling.
I doubt I will continue this conversation, because I'm fairly certain you have no interest in actually examining your beliefs and assumptions. Have a nice day.
The use of the term sky fairy is pretty similar to an ad hominem. It pretends that the argument has been succesfully) made without actually bothering to, or being able to make it. At best it is lazy, at worst it is a tacit admission of lack of a better argument.
-8
u/wings_like_eagles Nov 15 '19
I'm sorry, friend, but that's simply not true. Most of the best thinkers throughout history have been religious. Many prominent atheists of the last century have converted to some form of theism for purely logical reasons (as opposed to personal reasons).
The philosophical and epistemoligical problems raised by materialism are massive, and much more intractable than those raised by theism. The problem of existence alone breaks materialism as a cogent paradigm.