To answer the OP, no, I haven't encountered a compelling argument because Christianity actually hinges on two premises:
1. That the Christian god, and everything attached to it (most notably Jesus as a divine being) existed.
2. That they warrant worship if 1 is true.
1 is easy to refute. There's no valid evidence of the divine. We've had many threads in this sub-forum that try to argue for the divine, some going well over 100 pages, but ultimately the 'proof' rests on the historicity of an actual Jesus (which seems to be up in the air, but let's go with it for argument's sake) and a bunch of tertiary sources that really only provide context for what certain groups of Middle Eastern people believed in at the time. Those sources are all presented as "Here's what they believed, and here's proof that they believed it, and perhaps here's proof that some of the places/names/events existed/happened" but none of them then conclude with "therefore, their beliefs are validated." Because they can't be. And, let's not forget that the bible cannot be used to verify itself.
Jesus may have existed. But his existence isn't evidence of his divinity, just like Gautama Buddha's existence isn't evidence of Nirvana. Archaeological evidence doesn't imply the divine.
2 is a matter of ethics. Christians seem to worship god out of a weird mix of love and fear, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. The god of the OT is an asshole. NT Jesus isn't much better since his story introduces hell. There's also reprehensible things like Original Sin, the necessity of a blood sacrifice by proxy to clear it, and whatnot. Christians tend to defend these bad and often contradictory things by invoking the "mysterious ways/how can you, a finite being, judge the plans of an infinite god?" appeal to ignorance, but that's hardly compelling since it's utterly irrational. Asserting that everything you do is good does not make it so. Nor does the threat of omnipotence. Might doesn't make right.
Christianity's hook is based on a psychological fear of authority. Literally the fear of a father figure. "What if you're wrong?" is really an implied "Wait until your father gets home and sees what you've done!" But, here's the thing: I'm not a child any longer. Threats of punishment for not adhering to arbitrary and, frankly, silly rules aren't going to affect me. Especially when the purported punishment is eternal, vaguely defined torture for finite 'crimes'.
So far, nothing I've encountered satisfactorily addresses the issues I have with both premises.
1. That the Christian god, and everything attached to it (most notably Jesus as a divine being) existed.
2. That they warrant worship if 1 is true.
1 is easy to refute. There's no valid evidence of the divine. We've had many threads in this sub-forum that try to argue for the divine, some going well over 100 pages, but ultimately the 'proof' rests on the historicity of an actual Jesus (which seems to be up in the air, but let's go with it for argument's sake) and a bunch of tertiary sources that really only provide context for what certain groups of Middle Eastern people believed in at the time. Those sources are all presented as "Here's what they believed, and here's proof that they believed it, and perhaps here's proof that some of the places/names/events existed/happened" but none of them then conclude with "therefore, their beliefs are validated." Because they can't be. And, let's not forget that the bible cannot be used to verify itself.
Jesus may have existed. But his existence isn't evidence of his divinity, just like Gautama Buddha's existence isn't evidence of Nirvana. Archaeological evidence doesn't imply the divine.
2 is a matter of ethics. Christians seem to worship god out of a weird mix of love and fear, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. The god of the OT is an asshole. NT Jesus isn't much better since his story introduces hell. There's also reprehensible things like Original Sin, the necessity of a blood sacrifice by proxy to clear it, and whatnot. Christians tend to defend these bad and often contradictory things by invoking the "mysterious ways/how can you, a finite being, judge the plans of an infinite god?" appeal to ignorance, but that's hardly compelling since it's utterly irrational. Asserting that everything you do is good does not make it so. Nor does the threat of omnipotence. Might doesn't make right.
Christianity's hook is based on a psychological fear of authority. Literally the fear of a father figure. "What if you're wrong?" is really an implied "Wait until your father gets home and sees what you've done!" But, here's the thing: I'm not a child any longer. Threats of punishment for not adhering to arbitrary and, frankly, silly rules aren't going to affect me. Especially when the purported punishment is eternal, vaguely defined torture for finite 'crimes'.
So far, nothing I've encountered satisfactorily addresses the issues I have with both premises.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
