Your post, and your mention of free will is interesting.
It seems to me that a sensible person would tend to accept body and mind. Some philosophers have asked if we might be body only, or mind only. I don’t think either position can be disproved. Still, a sensible person would reject those positions.
The process of scientific inquiry has generally focused on the natural, the physical. Atheists have latched onto this generally successful endeavor, and falsely claimed it as their exclusive domain.
I think few atheists understand the implications of consistent main-line atheism. It means a rejection of the unseen: free will, making a decision, right and wrong, self-awareness, mind, beauty in music, art or nature, kindness, love. Main-line atheism may “explain” these things, as in explaining a mirage. Fundamentally, it denies they exist or are true.
Main-line atheism is philosophy, not science. It can not be disproven, or proven. At the end of the day, a sensible person must reject it. We simply have too much experience, data if you will, that the unseen elements (listed above) are real
It seems to me that a sensible person would tend to accept body and mind. Some philosophers have asked if we might be body only, or mind only. I don’t think either position can be disproved. Still, a sensible person would reject those positions.
...
That reminds me of how scientists argued for centuries about whether light is a particle or wave. Now we know it’s both, as is matter.
The key to atheists rejecting theism is to come up with a definition of God that is easy to reject. And I think that theists are mostly responsible for giving them the definitions.
The history of philosophy is a mess with all its different “isms” mainly because an “ism’s” proponents position themselves to reject all the other “isms.” They should take a cue from science and the reality of wave-particle duality.