How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

[Sarpedon]

And that knowledge is contingent upon these facts.

God’s essence is not identical with the object of His knowledge. God is not God’s knowledge. God has knowledge. My knowledge is not me, but I have knowledge. By essence, God is omniscient. By essence, I am an intellectual creature. However, studying subjects in school does not change my essence, just as God’s essence does not change by the actions of free individuals.

No matter what I learn, I still remain an intellectual creature capable of knowing things. That is what I am, and that does not change. Likewise, God remains perfectly omniscient, no matter what His free creatures do- nothing escapes Him. Omniscience refers to an ability inherent in essence. In essence, I am an intellectual creature, so I am capable of knowing things. In essence, God is perfectly intellectual, so He is capable of knowing all- but the specific object of this knowledge does not change the ability.

My knowledge of what Obama ate is indeed contingent upon Obama. However, my essence as a rational human being is not contingent upon Obama’s dinner. My essence as a rational creature is not contingent upon any particular facts.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’ve totally accepted your characterization of existence. We are not talking past each other at this point. C-existence is not relevant to my question above. Assuming that the real, foundation principal is p-existence as STEM, why does STEM change?

It is a brute fact. I cannot offer an explanation, since any explanation would presuppose something even more fundamental level, and there is nothing more fundamental. One cannot ask “why does a hydrogen atom have one proton and one electron?”. It is a brute fact, and cannot be “explained”. It is as it is.

The theistic answer might be: “because God made it so”. But that is not an explanation either.

God’s essence is not identical with the object of His knowledge. God is not God’s knowledge. God has knowledge.

Not according to the Catholic teaching that God is simple. God has no “parts”, God cannot be separated into “pieces”. God does not have knowledge, God is knowledge (among other things). Now I agree with you that it makes no sense, but there you go. That is the official Catholic teaching. And as such it is contradictory. That is all I am saying.

 

[Sarpedon]

It is a brute fact. I cannot offer an explanation, since any explanation would presuppose something even more fundamental level, and there is nothing more fundamental. One cannot ask “why does a hydrogen atom have one proton and one electron?”. It is a brute fact, and cannot be “explained”. It is as it is.

The theistic answer might be: “because God made it so”. But that is not an explanation either.

That’s not the theistic explanation. A theist would say that change and form only make sense in relation to a reference point. We observe change and form, and therefore there must be a reference point. I’ve already analyzed in depth why we would say that STEM cannot be the reference point.

When I point to the observation of change and form, you just through up your hands and say “that’s unexplainable.” In contrast, we are able to infer things from our observations of change and form, and therefore situate our observations in a logically necessary context.

Not according to the Catholic teaching that God is simple. God has no “parts”, God cannot be separated into “pieces”. God does not have knowledge, God is knowledge (among other things). Now I agree with you that it makes no sense, but there you go. That is the official Catholic teaching. And as such it is contradictory. That is all I am saying.

First off, Catholic philosophy is not necessarily Catholic doctrine. While there is some overlap, the nitty gritty of philosophical ideas like simplicity is not usually part of doctrine. Catholic philosophers are free to consider different ways to understand such things, and to work out better explanations. Jesus did not reveal Himself as a fully complete philosophical system. That comes later, and is the product of the human intellect.

You are working under the assumption that God has knowledge as we have knowledge- as being a part of us in our brain.

God is pure intelligible existence. God is omniscient because all that is knowable is existent in some form, and therefore in relation to God. When a free agent acts, he creates an intelligible, knowable thing. As an intelligible thing, this act stands in relation to God. Therefore, God knows it, as He knows all existent things.

The key point is this- God does not have knowledge as stored fact knowledge. God does not have some group of facts stored in His brain. When we say that God “knows” something we mean that the things stands in relation to God. This relation is not God. God is simple, yet He stands in relation to contingent things.

When free agents act, they create intelligibility or knowability, in the sense that they create an object of knowledge. God indeed knows the outcome of this free action, and that “knowledge” is contingent upon the free agents. However, this knowledge is relational. When God knows something, His intellect apprehends something- but there is no “body of knowledge” that God stores in some form. God is timeless, so He perfectly perceives all knowable things timelessly- but this perception never becomes some aspect of God. When God perceives something, there is a relation between the perceiver and the object. God’s omniscience in regard to things other than Himself is fundamentally relational. Furthermore, God does not change from the experience like we do- when things are put in relation to God, the things themselves change and become real by drawing upon existence and moving from potentiality to actuality!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Not according to the Catholic teaching that God is simple. God has no “parts”, God cannot be separated into “pieces”. God does not have knowledge, God is knowledge (among other things). Now I agree with you that it makes no sense, but there you go. That is the official Catholic teaching. And as such it is contradictory. That is all I am saying.

Have you actually asked the correct authorities what they mean by saying that God is his knowledge. Or are you just interpreting this according to your world view.

I think you will find that its the latter. The church does not intend, by saying that God is his knowledge, to suggest that God is necessarily identical with the subjects or objects of Gods knowledge; as this would be pantheism. It intends to mean that Gods knowledge is not potential knowledge. But rather the nature of Gods timeless and perfect being necessitates that God has all knowledge without potential. Also, it is only through Gods being that there is any knowledge, since God, through Gods esse, actualizes and sustains in being all true knowledge; and thus God is the existential cause of all contingent knowledge. Thus Gods being is said to be the root of his knowledge.

But you would know this if you were honest enough to compare your assumptions with the actual facts. Instead you have proven yourself arrogant enough to think that you have the sufficient knowledge and understanding to know better.

If you have something else to say, do not expect an answer, until you prove yourself to be open to possibility that you wrong.

 

[ddarko]

Continued from above:

Now it is time to go back to “I AM WHO AM”. Since you referred to the Catholic concept of God, I think it is appropriate to go into a few details.

God is supposed to have quite a few attributes - not just a faceless “framework”. One is “simplicity”, meaning that God has no parts, everything in God is simply his “undivided essence”. Another one is “necessity”, meaning that God is not contingent on anything. Yet another one is “omniscience” - meaning that God knows everything that can be known. And there are some others, also very important ones. But for the time being, let’s concentrate on these three ones: simplicity, necessity (lack of contingency) and omniscience. These three yield a contradiction or an absurdity.

Here comes. There are three different possibilities:

1. God is omniscient, because we do exactly what God already knows. In other words, God’s knowledge causes what we do or not do. This leads to the idea that we are simply robots, and as such this causal relationship is discarded. We firmly believe (almost all of us) that we are free beings.
2. God is omniscient, because he knows what we do, without causing us to do it. This seems reasonable, at first glance. We are free beings, we do whatever we do, and God simply knows it. In other words, the causal relationship goes the other way: “our actions cause God’s knowledge”. But that leads to the conclusion that God’s knowledge (which is integral part of his essence) is contingent upon our actions - thus contradicting that God’s essence is necessary (not contingent).
3. There is a third possibility. We do freely whatever we do, God knows it a-priori, without either causing them and without our actions causing God’s knowledge. In other words, we have a coincidence of more than cosmic scale. Trillions and quadrillions of actions, which happen to coincide with God’s knowledge, without assuming a causal relatinship in either direction. And that is an absurdity.
   If you want to, you can disregard this post. It does not strictly belong here. But since you mentioned the Catholic concept of God, I felt that I should make these few observations.

This contradiction really doesn’t exist. Have you heard of the Molinist solution? As long as the Molinist solution holds, I really don’t see why you think there is a contradiction.

Also, considering you made the assumption that Free-will and Omniscience is logically contradictory from your limited reason when in-fact there are logical models that do not deny free-will or Omniscience, I think it also shows the limited nature of your intellect

So in short, just because it looks self-contradictory due to your ignorance it really isn’t and maybe you should start considering the possibility that you might be wrong about a lot of other things

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Very well. I did not intend to make it a loaded question, but I suppose it can be viewed as such. So let me rephrase to avoid misunderstanding. We both agree that there is STEM - physical existence. We both agree (hopefully) that there are abstractions, which are mental constructs, which may or may not refer to STEM. Some of our abstractions refer to

1. physical entities (scientific theories, for example), some refer to
2. other abstractions (philosophy comes to mind), some refer to
3. fully imaginary entities (like fairy tales), and for me the list stops here.

I understand that for you the list does not stop here, you include the concepts of supernatural and you contend that these concepts actually refer to something that is not physical, which is not simply conceptual (or abstract), rather it has actual “existence”; something that is conscious without a physical brain and mind, something which can act without a physical body. For me this belongs to #3 above.

Ok this is rather ironic. You seem to consider yourself able to see ''self-contradictions" but you are failing to see how self-contradictory your position will be.

Are you denying the supernatural when the idea that the ‘‘natural world is all there is’’ is it-self contradictory? The most you can do is either remain agnostic about the supernatural or believe in the supernatural. For us Catholics there is evidence that a supernatural exists. Christ rose from the dead.

Now if you are denying that Christ rose from the dead, my question to you is then what about the historic evidence. Also, what about the fact that a group of people decided to preach an ‘absurd’ concept as resurrection in the midst of persecution especially if they knew there leader never rose from the dead? I can see one of them being delusional but the whole bunch? That is highly improbable. So the more probable explanation is that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. I have no clue why you don’t see it.

But in either case, the only two rational possibilities left to you are to remain agnostic about the supernatural or believe in it. Denying it is NOT a rational option

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Not according to the Catholic teaching that God is simple. God has no “parts”, God cannot be separated into “pieces”. God does not have knowledge, God is knowledge (among other things). Now I agree with you that it makes no sense, but there you go. That is the official Catholic teaching. And as such it is contradictory. That is all I am saying.

How does it make no sense? God is knowledge. I see no contradiction there. Also, saying something is self-contradictory because you cannot understand it doesn’t strike me as the most logical comment you’ve made

God Bless

 

[R_Daneel]

That’s not the theistic explanation. A theist would say that change and form only make sense in relation to a reference point. We observe change and form, and therefore there must be a reference point. I’ve already analyzed in depth why we would say that STEM cannot be the reference point.

When I point to the observation of change and form, you just through up your hands and say “that’s unexplainable.” In contrast, we are able to infer things from our observations of change and form, and therefore situate our observations in a logically necessary context.

The change occurs within STEM. It is an integral part of STEM. You can create an arbitrary 4-dimensional coordinate system and measure the changes in reference to that. That is your reference frame. What I don’t understand is why do you think that any existing object would be static and not dynamic.

First off, Catholic philosophy is not necessarily Catholic doctrine. While there is some overlap, the nitty gritty of philosophical ideas like simplicity is not usually part of doctrine.

But it is. It is not just a doctrine, it is a dogma. saintaquinas.com/article5.html

You are working under the assumption that God has knowledge as we have knowledge- as being a part of us in our brain.

No, I said the exact opposite, coming from the Cathecism. If God’s knowledge, whatever form it may happen to be is contingent, then God is contingent, precisely because God cannot be separated into “parts”.

 

[Sarpedon]

The change occurs within STEM. It is an integral part of STEM. You can create an arbitrary 4-dimensional coordinate system and measure the changes in reference to that. That is your reference frame. What I don’t understand is why do you think that any existing object would be static and not dynamic.

Because STEM as existence is already perfectly real. You argue that STEM is both existence and uncaused and not related to anything other than itself. We indeed observe change within STEM. However, where does this change come from? If STEM is the coordinate system, why do things within the coordinate system change?

As a perfectly real thing, STEM cannot increase or decrease in what it is. STEM cannot become more real or more complete than it already is. This means that STEM is necessarily sufficient as it is. With this in mind, I see no way to account for motion and form- what is it that changes things within the framework?

If STEM is existence, it is necessary that STEM be simple. This is because we cannot conceive of two equally real yet distinct things without placing them in a third framework that contains both of them. If STEM is simple, STEM cannot change, for to change is to have different ways of being, which necessitates a standard beyond the thing to measure that being. Now, suppose we say that STEM itself does not change, but the “internal aspects” of STEM change (i.e what we observe). This in of itself is a dubious claim, but I’ll let that go for now. So, if there internal aspects of STEM change, there has to be some fundamental reason why the change occurs. Since we are working under the framework of existence, it is indeed possible to answer this question in light of existence. However, I see no reason why an eternal, simple, and unchanging STEM would result in change at any level.

But it is. It is not just a doctrine, it is a dogma. saintaquinas.com/article5.html

That site looks like a middle school computer science project…

Can you source your understanding of the philosophical implications of simplicity in a catechism or encyclical?

Keep in mind that I’m not disputing the basic idea of simplicity. I’m disputing your understanding of it. Such philosophical ideas are much more complex than can be summed up in a sentence or two like you are doing.

No, I said the exact opposite, coming from the Cathecism. If God’s knowledge, whatever form it may happen to be is contingent, then God is contingent, precisely because God cannot be separated into “parts”.

OK, you didn’t address anything I said and just repeated yourself exactly the same.

It’s true that God cannot be separated into parts. However, human beings tend to think in terms of parts and differentiation. Therefore, human beings experience and describe God in terms of attributes like good, just, wise, all-knowing, etc. While God’s nature is simple, and not composed of these things as individual things, these particular attributes do accurately describe the human experience of God’s simple nature. They are labels we attach to God to make sense of what His simplicity means.

The same goes for knowledge. We describe God as all-knowing, because all is related to God and therefore under His nature. It is not the same as a very powerful human having knowledge. God exists in a timeless present, and his simple nature timelessly apprehends the contingent world. This apprehension is in totality, so all is apprehended. However, God does not “store” this knowledge as some part of Him. This knowledge is not part of God’s simple nature, precisely because it is a term to describe the way that God’s nature apprehends the contingent world through action. Apprehension is an act, not a part. I do not have apprehending. I apprehend. When God knows all timelessly, He acts- but this apprehension never becomes part of Him.

Can you have apprehending? No, because it’s not a part. It’s an action. God’s simple nature carries out the action, but that action does not become part of His nature.

 

[budgie2]

Typically, the atheist resorts to comparisons to fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. when the tenability of their position (i.e., there is no God) is challenged: unlike God, no one seriously thinks that they exist. Setting aside that this appeal does nothing to support their affirmative claim, how does one effectively respond to it?

The appeal is somewhat of a colloquial rearrangement of Russell’s teapot. I think the comparisons are faulty for several reasons. Except in folklore and legends, no one has ever seriously believed in such entities. Asserting otherwise, then, would be just that, an arbitrary and contrived assertion, and there could only ever be arbitrary and contrived reasoning to support it. The same can be said of other atheist standbys like the Greek and Viking gods/goddesses. By contrast, the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, in principle, would not be arbitrary, but necessary. Epistemologically, the comparisons are nonsensical.

Perhaps some of you will disagree with me, but I think I have shown, if only briefly, that the comparisons fail.

Atheists also bring these comparisons up to show that a negative cannot proven. If this is the case, why make a positive claim denying the existence of God? But is it true that a negative cannot be proven? If I say that there are no mints in pockets, I can empty my pockets and show you that there are no mints in them. Boom, negative proven. So how about the claim that unicorns don’t exist? Can that be proven?

Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?

I’m a Catholic but I still believe in fairies. Fairies are very similar to angels and cherubs. Theyr’e spirits of the dead in the pagan religion. But they’re also stuck in limbo. I see the fairy as the spirit of an unbaptised unborn baby. They’re very small spirits of dead children.

 

[ContegoFides]

I’m a Catholic but I still believe in fairies. Fairies are very similar to angels and cherubs. Theyr’e spirits of the dead in the pagan religion. But they’re also stuck in limbo. I see the fairy as the spirit of an unbaptised unborn baby. They’re very small spirits of dead children.

I’m curious, as a Catholic myself, what is the basis of this belief?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I haven’t read most of this thread yet, so I apologize if this post is out of place.

Typically, the atheist resorts to comparisons to fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. when the tenability of their position (i.e., there is no God) is challenged: unlike God, no one seriously thinks that they exist. Setting aside that this appeal does nothing to support their affirmative claim, how does one effectively respond to it?

It’s important to first understand what atheism is. Atheism is lack of belief in God, not belief that there is no God. There’s a big difference between the two…

A juror is (in the US at least) supposed to vote by default “not guilt” unless the affirmative charge of the person’s guilt is demonstrated beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt. Voting “not guilty” is not necessarily an indication that one thinks the defendant is innocent, but rather a lack of conviction of the assertion of guilt that the prosecution is making. Atheism is somewhat like voting “not guilty”. It’s not claiming that God doesn’t exist (which would be anti-theism), but rather lacking belief that God does exist.

Some atheists are also anti-theist, which does require evidence to justify, but certainly not all are.

The appeal is somewhat of a colloquial rearrangement of Russell’s teapot.

The point that Bertrand Russell was trying to make with his teapot analogy is that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person expressing lack of conviction. Just like the burden of proof is on the prosecution during a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on those who are asserting that God exists, not those who are critical of those assertions.

If someone was saying that they know for a fact that there is no God, than that would require some evidence to justify it.

Atheists also bring these comparisons up to show that a negative cannot proven. If this is the case, why make a positive claim denying the existence of God?

Atheists who aren’t anti-theist don’t make a positive claim there’s no God.

But is it true that a negative cannot be proven? If I say that there are no mints in pockets, I can empty my pockets and show you that there are no mints in them. Boom, negative proven. So how about the claim that unicorns don’t exist? Can that be proven?

It’s not just proving a negative, it’s specifically proving the lack of existence of something altogether.

It depends on what you mean by “proof”. Perhaps it would be better to say something like “justify belief” than “proof”. If by proof you mean demonstrate that something is such that the thing asserted cannot be wrong at all, than you haven’t “proven” your pockets to not have mints (in principle, they could be invisible and floating mints). If by “proof” you mean demonstrate beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that something is so (in this case, a mint not being in your pocket) than you have “proved” (under this meaning of “proof”) that there was no mints in your pocket.

I want to point out that the lack of a God could be “proved” in the second sense by discrediting the veracity of all the religions of the world. This obviously wouldn’t mean that the existence of God has been absolutely proven to not be, but that is about as strong of “proof” as your lack of mints in pocket analogy.

Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?

I say (as someone who used to believe in God), either first disprove the existence of things such as fairies so that non-believers can copy your methodology, or don’t demand proof that there’s no God.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It’s not claiming that God doesn’t exist (which would be anti-theism), but rather lacking belief that God does exist.

You don’t see any good reason to believe that God exists, and you feel that the absence of what you would accept as evidence is reason enough to think that God doesn’t exist. This is the truth, yes?

 

[Windfish]

That Flewian definition is so problematic, yet it is used wildly on the internet. We really have to do a thread on that and explore it. The fact of the matter is, atheism has always been defined as the belief or doctrine that there is no god or gods. It wasn’t until 20th century atheists realized that this belief cannot be rationally defended that they made the definition even weaker to the one being used today by amateurs and laymen on the internet. Needless to say, I am tired of seeing it. Too bad the topic of atheism is banned on CAF right now. I’d respond to more of your post, TruthSeeker, but I’ve already been warned and don’t want to lose my account.

 

[Windfish]

You don’t see any good reason to believe that God exists, and you feel that the absence of what you would accept as evidence is reason enough to think that God doesn’t exist. This is the truth, yes?

I talked to you before about forming a think-tank. Well, one of the first things we should do is discuss and explore this very odd definition. “the lack of something”. So bizarre.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

You don’t see any good reason to believe that God exists, and you feel that the absence of what you would accept as evidence is reason enough to think that God doesn’t exist. This is the truth, yes?

I didn’t indicate that lack of evidence was enough to think that something doesn’t exist. For something as extraordinary as God, one should not believe in God’s existence (as opposed to claim that God doesn’t exist) until there is proper evidence. That’s what I was trying to say.

A key thing that needs to be considered here is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The fact of the matter is, atheism has always been defined as the belief or doctrine that there is no god or gods.

I don’t know about that.

Even if that were the case, words tend change over time, with or without that change being intentional.

atheism has always been defined as the belief or doctrine that there is no god or gods. It wasn’t until 20th century atheists realized that this belief cannot be rationally defended that they made the definition even weaker to the one being used today by amateurs and laymen on the internet.

Source?

The belief that there is no omni-benevolent, omni-potent, and omniscient God can be defended on philosophical grounds. It’s not my intent to extensively do so here, but the general problem of evil is one category of arguments that could be made against the existence of such a being.

I want to say, in case this discussion goes further, that what God’s essence needs to be sufficianly understood for God to meaningfully fulfill many of the roles people give to Him (such as “uncaused causer”). After all, one cannot meaningfully explain a mystery by a complete mystery. The problem is that theologians will tell you that one cannot grasp what God is, but merely what he is not.

Too bad the topic of atheism is banned on CAF right now. I’d respond to more of your post, TruthSeeker, but I’ve already been warned and don’t want to lose my account.

Perhaps you could respond by PM (unless my limited inbox becomes full). I would welcome any discussion that is civil and avoids ad hominem attacks (which I frequently get from theists).

 

[lemondiesel]

Typically, the atheist resorts to comparisons to fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. when the tenability of their position (i.e., there is no God) is challenged: unlike God, no one seriously thinks that they exist. Setting aside that this appeal does nothing to support their affirmative claim, how does one effectively respond to it?

The appeal is somewhat of a colloquial rearrangement of Russell’s teapot. I think the comparisons are faulty for several reasons. Except in folklore and legends, no one has ever seriously believed in such entities. Asserting otherwise, then, would be just that, an arbitrary and contrived assertion, and there could only ever be arbitrary and contrived reasoning to support it. The same can be said of other atheist standbys like the Greek and Viking gods/goddesses. By contrast, the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, in principle, would not be arbitrary, but necessary. Epistemologically, the comparisons are nonsensical.

Perhaps some of you will disagree with me, but I think I have shown, if only briefly, that the comparisons fail.

Atheists also bring these comparisons up to show that a negative cannot proven. If this is the case, why make a positive claim denying the existence of God? But is it true that a negative cannot be proven? If I say that there are no mints in pockets, I can empty my pockets and show you that there are no mints in them. Boom, negative proven. So how about the claim that unicorns don’t exist? Can that be proven?

Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?

I’m going off of the original post, I’m not reading all replies until here. I feel confident I can help you here Windfish.

Now, in order to even make this argument, we must define what a definition is. Yes it describes something, but the hidden message is that there is a universal acceptance said definition.

Now when we look at the examples in your question, we lack anything with the essence of the word God. We may see ‘mythical creature’ but that does not give a sound definition of existing.

God has the definition of ‘All perfect’, ‘All Good’, ‘All Powerful.’ Now in order to even have these attributes one must exist, right? An ‘All Powerful’ God, wouldn’t it be better to exist, then not to exist? Therefore, God must exist.

A Unicorn, fairy, or leprechaun does not have these in its universal definition. Sure someone can all of a sudden claim them as all perfect, but that is not universally accepted.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

You don’t see any good reason to believe that God exists, and you feel that the absence of what you would accept as evidence is reason enough to think that God doesn’t exist. This is the truth, yes?

I wanted to add that you probably wouldn’t accept the claims of religions other than your own partly because you haven’t been shown evidence to justify belief in the god/gods of those religions.

 

[Pieman333272]

I wanted to add that you probably wouldn’t accept the claims of religions other than your own partly because you haven’t been shown evidence to justify belief in the god/gods of those religions.

I have three comparative religion textbooks and have more post-its in the Hinduism and Shinto sections in each than I do in the Christianity and Judaism ones. I actually study religions before I don’t believe them - its true! I have reasons to doubt polytheism and pantheism/pandeism, but I still read ideas opposed to or different from my own.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7187993:

I wanted to add that you probably wouldn’t accept the claims of religions other than your own partly because you haven’t been shown evidence to justify belief in the god/gods of those religions.

I have three comparative religion textbooks and have more post-its in the Hinduism and Shinto sections in each than I do in the Christianity and Judaism ones. I actually study religions before I don’t believe them - its true! I have reasons to doubt polytheism and pantheism/pandeism, but I still read ideas opposed to or different from my own.

It’s great that you study various religions!

I want to note that I used the word “partly”, indicating it wasn’t the only reason.

Also, there are thousands (I don’t know the exact number) of religions, which is way too many to reasonably expect anyone to study. One obviously doesn’t need to have studied and disproved all of the thousands of religions for one’s lack of belief in them to be justified. However studying about a half dozen religions would cover the general religious beliefs of most people in the world.