I've been listening to a podcast called The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, which aims to cover not just the well-known names but summarizes all philosophy through history.

[nonya_bidniss@infosec.exchange]

I've been listening to a podcast called The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, which aims to cover not just the well-known names but summarizes all philosophy through history. And I'll tell you, seeing what mostly privileged men have had to say going back a few thousand years and their endless hypothesizing on "god" and what "he" is and must necessarily want, bestow, punish, demand, reward, etc., makes me even more atheist. It's all made up to suit the men of the time. Yes, I knew that, but listening to this has actually brought it to mind.

It seems to me the characteristic of "religiosity," or similar word you might use--let's not nitpick over a word--is probably a spectrum among humans from the max of frothing cultist to the min of entirely disbelieving atheist. If that's so, there's not much you can do about a person's innate bent toward belief in gods. But what the plurality of early Greek, Roman, and early christian philosophers (I have only got from the dawn of recorded history to a few hundred years post-Jesus at this point) were not doing was claiming that a god had come to them and told them things and gave them commands. Those old guys were completely hypothesizing based on the world around them and the kinds of things that they thought made sense. And those who today claim special knowledge of gods are doing the same shit. That fact doesn't negate the possibility that there is at least one god. But it entirely negates the idea that you should ever listen to what any other human being claims to know about it.