Let's be honest

[The Grand Nudger]

Evolutionary heritage, but also the specifics of our upbringing. Take poor ole Chucky D, there. Subjected to religious indoctrination that did not (and could not) stop when he became an adult. Wondering whether a natural brain could be trustworthy, as though a magical brain would be a standard of the type. You can see it creeping in even when he flirts with the truth. He believed, for example, that common descent from a single ancestor was a better explanation for the interior of a skull than special creation. This is the only thing he ever had to say about brains in Origin. There was alot of shit darwin didn't know and didn't talk much about. He saw no need for it and assumed, based on weird god shit he was subjected to, that this is not representative of a gods work. It would not have occurred to him that god jackson pollocked all of it.

[Anomalocaris]

Let’s be honest…..

“honest“ has almost as many subtlety different practical definitions as there are occasions for the use of the word.     And most of these definitions were concocted to exploit the nice rhetorical tone of the word “honest” to serve the defined’ s immediate rhetorical purpose,  and not meant to imply discourse should actually be constrained by sound logic intellectual rigor in the pursuit of the truth.

Which “honest” are you calling for, really?

If you are serious about deducing what is most likely the truth, as oppose to looking for a cognitive weakness, any cognitive weakness, in another by what you conceive to be clever leading question in the hope of practicing upon the gullible to enlist as an aid to help you indulge in the happy delusions formed by your own cognitive weakness,   Then perhaps you should have have titled this thread:

“Let’s be intellectually rigorous”

[Angrboda]

I find that when most people suggest that science supports the existence of God, a prime mover, etc, it's because they don't know what they're talking about, often from having been misled by theologists like William Lane Craig who is well-known for serially misrepresenting both science and mathematics. When you listen to motivated reasoners like Craig, you get what you deserve, which is a worldview that rests on bullshit and misinformation.

[Mister Agenda]

On the bright side, Kingpin is livening up the place in a much less frustrating way than Drich did.

[arewethereyet]

^Very true.

[Anomalocaris]

I am not sure yet more of the same dodges and same leading questions, the same apriori arguments, same affirmations of the consequence, the same affective fallacy, the same appeal to authority framed in the same duplicity, the same appeal to closure, etc, etc, offered in much the same condescending tone livens anything up at all.

Sure he does not quite shine as brightly as Drich as an example of how belief in god is compatible with no brains whatsoever, but Drich set the bar so low that no one else has the talent required to be able to fail to get over it.

[pocaracas]

A bit late to the party, but oh well...

OK, reaching out to my agnostic/atheist friends.  I'm very curious, genuinely interested, are there are "arguments" that theists have provided for proof of a God's existence (not even the Christian God), that you found compelling?  Or caused you to pause and perhaps say, there might be A God out there?

I found that when it's all broken down in most debates, an agnostic/atheist boils down to moral arguments/judgments against God, which in and of themselves does not disprove there being a God per se.  Just that they refuse to accept a God they find reprehensible.

The closest that came to a "compeling" argument, for me, was the metaphysical one... where god is the entirety of the metaphysical realm. That way, this entity can be said to underlie all of physics and, thus, all of reality. That could be a creator god, but it would be one that somehow got created along with its creation.

I've read that this is phylosophical underpinning of the Christian god, with the necessary leap of faith where the "metaphysics entity" is then able to somehow embody into its own human-like son in a particular location of this huge planet, preach around for a couple of years a message that was already floating in the area for decades or centuries, and then rely on a few of his followers to write it down decades later.

Of course, it's an argument that can be dismissed by assuming that metaphysics is actually created by human brains finding patterns, as they evolved to do.
But... we cannot know for sure. That's why it's the best argument for me.

[HappySkeptic]

To the OP:

Why is there something instead of nothing? I don't know, but including a god in the answer is begging the question.

All gods presented by the various religions are either self-contradictory, or highly unlikely given the evidence we have available.

Most god believers don't come to their belief through evidence or logic. They believe because it makes them feel good to believe. The moral argument against god attacks this good feeling, and can be a reason why some decide not to believe.

I agree that a god being immoral or uncaring does not mean it doesn't exist, though. Most atheists simply see no reason to imagine that one does.

[Simon Moon]

OK, reaching out to my agnostic/atheist friends.  I'm very curious, genuinely interested, are there are "arguments" that theists have provided for proof of a God's existence (not even the Christian God), that you found compelling?  Or caused you to pause and perhaps say, there might be A God out there?

Not a single one. They are all fallacious.

Kalam, ontological, teleological, presuppositional arguments are all flawed. They are either invalid, unsound, or both. So, they do not prove what they claim to prove.

I found that when it's all broken down in most debates, an agnostic/atheist boils down to moral arguments/judgments against God, which in and of themselves does not disprove there being a God per se.  Just that they refuse to accept a God they find reprehensible.

When I use moral arguments, it is not an attempt to disprove a god's existence, it is to point out to theists, that they (depending on their specific theology) have beliefs that are contradictor. As in, they claim they believe in a maximally moral god, yet, according to various ancient texts: support slavery, genocide, misogamy, etc.

I can't think of any atheist, that uses moral arguments as a disproof of gods.

[Kingpin]

On the bright side, Kingpin is livening up the place in a much less frustrating way than Drich did.

Lol oh Drich and I got in to it a few times back in the day.