It comes down to the strawman fallacy. If a specific claim is made that can be refuted, that's science. If you just hand wave away huge chunks of philosophy and literature based on a specific claim that someone made, or that you stand up for the purpose of discussion, then you are impoverishing human culture.
Maybe you should read ancient Greek mythology before saying 'Zeus is bunk'. Is there a specific claim about reality you are referring to? Or are you saying all of ancient Greek texts about Zeus have zero philosophical value?
Who said ancient Greek texts about Zeus have zero philosophical value? I didn't, and I doubt anyone except you did, so it's quite ironic that you say:
> It comes down to the strawman fallacy
Most atheists are scientists. People talk about what they know. If you're mad because they don't talk about Greek mythology (which is a pretty different subject), are you mad that they don't discuss the correct way to make a ham and cheese omelette as well?
Also, would still like a name/example that we can evaluate your claims against.
> Maybe you should read ancient Greek mythology before saying 'Zeus is bunk'. Is there a specific claim about reality you are referring to? Or are you saying all of ancient Greek texts about Zeus have zero philosophical value?
As directed to me or the aforementioned atheists, but as a general question it has value (IMHO)
Maybe you should read ancient Greek mythology before saying 'Zeus is bunk'. Is there a specific claim about reality you are referring to? Or are you saying all of ancient Greek texts about Zeus have zero philosophical value?