Well said!

At least in some Native Americans or First Nations peoples as we call them in Canada, this was not the case.

There are infinite possible deities and faiths. If the premise is that one must believe in the correct one to be “saved”, there is no point, since there is no evidence to distinguish between said infinite possibilities.

Also, since we are positing that belief could save us, why should I not hold the belief that atheism will allow my consciousness to remain in another reality, or even simply another place in spacetime? Naturalism does not deny the infinite possibilities wrought by the unknown. (Well, the answer is shown in the first paragraph, but in case that didn’t convince you).

But let’s get serious now. You present a logical progression of propositions in order to support the final one. I think you’d agree that in order for such a form of argument to hold up, P1 must be true. However, it is simply a baseless assumption. There is no reason supported by evidence that any belief, atheistic or not, has any effect on what happens to consciousness after death.

When you consider how important the meaning of words and the limits of languages are, and how it’s ramifications manifested geographically over history, this becomes especially clear. In order for philosophy to propagate fully it’s authors intent there must be a semantic agreement with the audience. In addition, language procures and inhibits our ability to shape intuition into coherent thought.

But if man were not interested in said insight why did he pursue it? The discussion here is whether or not the categorization makes sense, not whether it was used in the past. To me, to pursue something implies an interest, it’s tautology. But I guess we just have a semantic disagreement.

I disagree with your conclusion. I don’t think a piece of media can be toxic via the moral standing of its creator. If the content itself is toxic, then sure. To separate the art from the artist is to analyze and experience the thing itself in the moment, not the information attached to it such as it’s origin.

Now if we’re talking about supporting someone bad by buying their stuff then sure, you shouldn’t do that. I just wouldn’t frame it as the piece of fiction itself being bad. Consider piracy.

Take a great piece of fiction, say, Crime and Punishment. Now let’s say that it was actually written by Adolf Hitler. Will that shape your subjective experience of it, potentially even making it completely unpalatable to you? Yes. However, does that make it a worse piece of art? I don’t think so.