Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[Simon Moon]

Because it is self-protective in-group bullshit for intellectual pansies who would rather pride themselves in a quality they share with cabbages, i.e. lack of belief, than openly take a stance with all the attendent responsiblities for that stance. Just because you repeat and insist on redefining common words to avoid criticism or from some misguided attempt to secure the mantel of normative belief...talking louder does not make it true.

Theist: A person who believes in a God or gods.
Atheist: A person who doesn't believe in a God or gods.

No cabbages referenced. And atheists have been using the term this way since the 1800s.

The Atheist does not say “There is no God,” but he says, “I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word ‘God’ is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which, by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me.” Charles Bradlaugh, 'A Plea for Atheism', 1864

I can't speak specifically about Neo, but every time in the past, when I encounter a theist that talks in terms of atheists being "intellectual pansies", or not "taking a stance", as if we are trying to avoid saying, "gods don't exist", theists are coming from the position of atheism being a worldview.

They think, because their theism is a worldview, then our atheism must also be a worldview. So, they are expecting atheists to defend our worldview, we have to claim the opposite of theists. As if we are defending our 'no god" hill, against their "there is a god" hill.

Many really are unable to get the concept of simply disbelieving their god claims, based on a valid and sound epistemology, i.e., demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument.

So, the bottom line for Neo-Scholastic's benefit, is:

I don't claim to know, with absolute certainty, that gods do not exist.  

This defines me as an agnostic.

I also currently disbelieve any gods exist.

This defines me as an atheist.

Therefore, I am, wait for it, an agnostic-atheist. Where is the oxymoron?

[R00tKiT]

As I go through the process of continually reexamining by beliefs (largely now former beliefs), I remain committed to being open minded and considering all sides of any issue.  Honestly, that what has led to my deconversion - considering sources and facts which were hidden/forbidden/shouted down in my world for decades.  To that end, I find a lot on the atheist/agnostic/none position which I find very intellectually satisfying and honest.  Everyone has their bias, so no one is truly down the middle, but in particular I enjoy reading Shermer, Ehrman, Harris, etc - all the ones you might expect.

So my question is - does anyone have suggetions on where to look on the theist side for something honest?  I say that because the sources I am pointed toward by theists tend to feel like sales jobs treading over well-worn arguments (Kalaam, Pascal, gaps, etc) rather than true explorations.  I'm getting suggested folks like WL Craig, Habermas, Strobel, Licona - and I just feel like they are all starting with their desired answer and backfilling.  Are there others that might provide any satisfying thoughts?

This channel, and this video in particular, might be helpful 

[Simon Moon]

As I go through the process of continually reexamining by beliefs (largely now former beliefs), I remain committed to being open minded and considering all sides of any issue.  Honestly, that what has led to my deconversion - considering sources and facts which were hidden/forbidden/shouted down in my world for decades.  To that end, I find a lot on the atheist/agnostic/none position which I find very intellectually satisfying and honest.  Everyone has their bias, so no one is truly down the middle, but in particular I enjoy reading Shermer, Ehrman, Harris, etc - all the ones you might expect.

So my question is - does anyone have suggetions on where to look on the theist side for something honest?  I say that because the sources I am pointed toward by theists tend to feel like sales jobs treading over well-worn arguments (Kalaam, Pascal, gaps, etc) rather than true explorations.  I'm getting suggested folks like WL Craig, Habermas, Strobel, Licona - and I just feel like they are all starting with their desired answer and backfilling.  Are there others that might provide any satisfying thoughts?

This channel, and this video in particular, might be helpful 

Kalam is a fallacious argument. It is invalid in form, and the premises are questionable.

Not to mention, even if it were valid and sound, it still would not demonstrate a god exists.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

God does not appear in either premise, nor the conclusion.

Therefore, Kalam is not an argument for the existence of a god, it is an argument for the existence of a cause for the universe.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Kalam is long refuted garbage 

[Jehanne]

Kalam is long refuted garbage 

The guy in the above video pilfered it from WLC.

[Mister Agenda]

To be clear, I am a gnostic atheist regarding a God who is both omniscient and omnipotent, as I believe those attributes contradict each other and any God that is supposed to have them is a married bachelor. An omnipotent being can do anything, an omniscient being can only do what it always knew it was going to do. But if you chip down one or both of those attributes to the point they're no longer contradictory, like 'knows everything but the future' or 'can do anything logically possible', you can get a deity that is at least remotely possible, if not plausible. I am an agnostic atheist towards versions of God that don't have contradictory attributes or are supposed to have done things that never happened. The worst I can say about those versions is that I'm not aware of any evidence for one that a reasonable person who hasn't been indoctrinated from a young age should find convcincing.

I can understand why someone who has had a profound religious experience such as attributed to Paul on the way to Damascus may find it convincing, but I don't understand why they think other people ought to find it convincing.

[TheJefe817]

I can understand why someone who has had a profound religious experience such as attributed to Paul on the way to Damascus may find it convincing, but I don't understand why they think other people ought to find it convincing.

It's no different to me than a person very close to me who believes in ghosts (but not the christian god).  She believes such because of experiences she has had personally of seeing/interacting (or at least she believes she has).  That's fine for her, but as I've told her, does nothing for me.  She's free to believe what she wants based on her powerful personal experience, and I also cannot disprove those experiences, but that's no reason for me or anyone else.  To her credit, she accepts this.  I wish the same could be said for theists amongst my friends and family who are convinced their personal testimony should be enough to bring me back on its own.  That's actually why I started this thread as OP - to see if there were convincing apologetics I was missing, outside of personal experience.

[Jehanne]

Once I awoke around 5 AM to "see" a 4-foot or so brown creature at the foot of my bed with an evil, sinister stare and a small, oval mouth filled with teeth. I remember thinking, "Well, I am having a waking dream," and I went back to sleep.

[Angrboda]

To be clear, I am a gnostic atheist regarding a God who is both omniscient and omnipotent, as I believe those attributes contradict each other and any God that is supposed to have them is a married bachelor. An omnipotent being can do anything, an omniscient being can only do what it always knew it was going to do. But if you chip down one or both of those attributes to the point they're no longer contradictory, like 'knows everything but the future' or 'can do anything logically possible', you can get a deity that is at least remotely possible, if not plausible. I am an agnostic atheist towards versions of God that don't have contradictory attributes or are supposed to have done things that never happened. The worst I can say about those versions is that I'm not aware of any evidence for one that a reasonable person who hasn't been indoctrinated from a young age should find convcincing.

I can understand why someone who has had a profound religious experience such as attributed to Paul on the way to Damascus may find it convincing, but I don't understand why they think other people ought to find it convincing.

I lean the same way, but can't go the extra inch to gnosticism due to not being able to deductively demonstrate incoherence between different attributes. I'm close to a demonstration that omniscience, moral perfection, and differing after-lives are in conflict, but there's a loose end that occurred to me as I thought things over recently, and that would need to be nailed down.

[The Grand Nudger]

It all makes me think of a person who can't commit to whether or not an i-beam sinks because of some confusion about or gaps-in-knowledge they have regarding a vague and obscure process of smelting.