nunnington wrote:
Two, the one that Godel amplified considerably, that necessary existence is an attribute of a perfect being, and since (Godel argues) God must exist in one possible world, and his existence is necessary, therefore he exists in all worlds.

The one Godel never published because it doesn't work, you mean?

In a world where all most cultures are dominated by religion, then it would seem to many that atheism [new or any other kind] is nonsense. Actually this is wrong. Atheism is not nonsense in a religious world, it is counter-intuitive to those steeped in religious culture. There is a world of difference.

This is a similar situation to the attitudes of those who irrationally dismiss science. Science is NOT, in the main, common-sense. If it were, we would just be able to guess reality and understand all nature intuitively. Our umwelts [an evolved sense of place] allows us to understand nature within certain limits generally related to our fitness, but little else. [Survival traits=knowledge, of predators, preys etc].

Science, by its methodology and discipline, gives us non-intuitive insights into nature which are more general, applicable and precise than what we can gain from our umwelts. Thus a creationist can know what a cat is, but understand nothing about how it got here.

Back to atheism. It needs either a good education, or a good mind. Because we are programmed in our "intentional stance" [Dennett], and therefore are tempted to impart meaning to a rock falling on us, or a tiger chasing us. Rocks are not "out to get us", they are just obeying gravity, and we are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Big cats are just after a feed, or defending territory, they are not there to punish us for our "evils".

We only notice the lottery ticket that wins, and thank god instead of noticing how many of our other tickets did not make the draw.

Only humans can be "out to get us" and mean it consciously and personally. Our brains are wired to anthropomorphizing every damn thing, and science teaches us to get a better handle on reality by trying to avoid "intentional stances" [except where appropriate] and confirmational biases.

Not that our survival traits are a bad thing. It is not survival-enhancing to philosophize about the tiger's intent in that emergency. But safely back in our cave, we can ponder if the Tiger really is out to punish us for our sins. The logical answer is probably not, it is just doing what it does.

So if counter-intuitive thinking is nonsense, I will wear the badge of the "fool" proudly. I may even curse the gods, when a lump of rock hits me on the head. But if, in the sober light of day, that I conclude that I was plagiarizing nature by crediting gods or devils for the lump on my head, then so be it. I would rather remain this species of fool.