Have you ever actually heard an response that made you stop and think?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I would like to hear more specific responses like those of Simon Moon and Jor rather than general professions of open-mindedness.

[Asmodee]

All the time, but not for the reasons you are assuming.  Theists, I've found Jehovah's Witnesses in particular, often use mental trickery to make their point.  I often have to "stop and think", but not because they are making sense but rather to figure out exactly how they are trying to trick me.

One example of this, I once had a JW ask me, "Wouldn't you agree that the weapons we have today are more powerful than any in history?"  Briefly my mind said, "Wow, that is true" before immediately following up with "Wait a minute...I would have answered 'yes' to that question AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY!"  The spear was more powerful than the lobbed rock, the sword more powerful than the stick, the canon more powerful than the catapult, the missile more powerful than the mortar...  It does not matter at what point in history you ask that question, the answer is always "Yes".  Never before has it heralded the end of the world, so there is no reason to believe it is now, which is what he was alluding to.

[lugal ki en]

As many others have said, the thinking I'm doing is usually trying to discern what kind of response is most useful to refute the argument. Never have I heard a genuinely convincing argument for the existence of god that can't be disproved by scientific enquiry or that simply comports with reality. The worst arguments I've ever heard come from suppositional apologists such as Sye Ten Bruggencate. That guy is ridiculous!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Suppositionalism is particularly bad. I cannot even believe anyone, including its presenters, actually find it credible.

[lugal ki en]

Suppositionalism is particularly bad. I cannot even believe anyone, including its presenters, actually find it credible.

Yeah, if you want to see a particularly bad example watch the debate between Sye and Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience. Honestly the audience begin laughing at some points, its insane!!

[The Grand Nudger]

@The OP Q.  Sure I have.  I constantly find reason to stop and think "holy shit, I'm dealing with a crazy person".  

[downbeatplumb]

I had a fun afternoon once with some Jehovahs witnesses who went on about goldilocks zones and other such stuff they vaguely understood. It was fun watching their response when it turned out I had answers for every bullshit thing they presented. The best part was when they said the bible was in its entirety a document for the modern world, so I went and got our copy and read out some of the more ridiculous parts of Leviticus. They never came back.

[Whateverist]

I'm happy to think about what it is about god belief that has appealed to so many for so long and in so many places. I'm even willing to consider what positive role it may have played in the development of our conscious minds. But reasons to literally believe in magical, invisible creator faeries? Umm .. no. There is no rational, logical basis for believing in the ridiculous.

[Excited Penguin]

Deism, when I first heard of it as a boy. I still think it's the most reasonable possibility (however remote) for any deity.

Do you think it is reasonable at all by itself, or do you merely think it is more reasonable than other kinds of belief in a God because of the latter's abundance of unprovable claims by comparison?

I hope I was being polite here. I assure you of my good intentions with asking this question, if that helps. Thank you.

[Edwardo Piet]

I know you didn't ask me but in case you don't know already EP, I think deism is completely unreasonable... just more probable than personal gods which are absolutely ridiculous and unrealistic on a cartoon level.

I'd say the probability of deistic gods are still next to nothing. Just less ridiculous and more probable.

I mean, any kind of supernatural deity being at the very beginning of existence sounds very absurd to me. The universe goes from the simple to the more complex. Even a non-personal deity that just creates the universe and does fuck all sounds very ridiculous to me. Just less ridiculous and improbable on the cartoonish level that personal theistic gods are.

What d'you reckon?

Oh and EP please consider my post to you entirely impersonal. I can do impersonal with you. I'm good at impersonal when I try to be impersonal. I don't want to stop discussing stuff on AF with you just because we're not exactly friends right now (biggest understatement of my life... you'd be my enemy if I actually had enemies). And I was wrong to ever think me and you were alike, at least in personality or character. We're exact opposites IMO.