Belief

[Ryft]

1. Humans have developed a vivid imagination.
2. Many fictional characters have been created by human imagination, e.g. leprechauns, fairies, dragons, god(s), etc.
3. Therefore, no deity exists, except in the realm of human imagination.

An argument that assumes gods are products of human imagination in order to conclude that gods are products of human imagination is a viciously circular epic fail.

---

---

My point is that so-called defeaters, such as the free-will defense, do not give a knockout blow to arguments for atheism such as evil and reasonable unbelief (divine hiddenness).

The only arguments for atheism such defeaters knockout are the logical forms thereof, which are intended to demonstrate a contradiction. If there is no logical contradiction, then such arguments are defeated (e.g., if God has a morally sufficient reason for X, then X no longer demonstrates a contradiction and the argument is dead). To maintain the argument, the atheist would have to show that God having a morally sufficient reason for X itself involves a contradiction. The logical Problem of Evil and other such arguments are exercises in futility that since the 70s and 80s (Smith, Mackie, etc.) few atheist philosophers waste time on.

Let's stop talking for a second about the philosophical [concept of] god and talk about the Christian God, who clearly threatens people if they do not do as they are told.

First, the God of Christianity is the only one I contend for in my arguments anyway, regardless of whether others are using generic deity or not. Second, God does not threaten anybody, if 'threat' means an act of coercion (which you indicated as your meaning); it carries the implication of forcing someone against their will into this or that action, which is inapplicable here because God does not force anyone into anything. It is more akin to your cliff analogy, wherein God says, "You can do X, which results in P, or not, which results in Q." You can now make an informed choice, knowing what this or that choice results in. Taking umbrage to some consequence does not equate to the loss of free-will. Third, the very notion of God forcing someone against their will is utterly meaningless (it presupposes a will capable of resisting God, which is question-begging vis-à-vis omnipotence and omniscience).

Worship is by definition an abandonment of your autonomy and ultimately free will.

The abandonment of your autonomy assumes you had it to begin with, which is question-begging vis-à-vis a God who is sovereign over his creation. You can assume what you like, of course, but belief P (God's sovereignty) is not refuted by the mere existence of ~P belief y (human autonomy).