General point.
As the corner theists in general find themselves painted into by the relentless advance of science, the arguments for god become increasingly based on logical fallacies and semantic quibbling.
In that regard, I would recommend Sean Carroll, but my experience is that theists in general do not understand that.
The bottom line is that "god" has run out of gaps in which to hide.
We are left with a deity who ignored Homo Sapiens Sapiens for the first 180,000 years, briefly showed up to cast a hatload of immoral rules in a tiny region of the world and then vanished without trace. Europeans, indigenous Americans, antipodeans, chinese they can all go *** right off. "god" doesn't care.
"Loving god" my bum. "Can't give a flying **** god" might be more accurate.
Now, without doubt, there will be some who object that this is not the "god" to which they adhere. That in itself is interesting. We as humans number 7 billion or so. Of those, over half believe in the Abrahamic god. It seems to me that our theist protagonists here have invented their own peculiar version of "god" which simply comports to their own desires. Atlas has a heretical version of islam, GC has his own version of xtianity, Neo has some version of I don't know what, CL is the ultimate a-la-carte catholic, and so on and on.
All of them have one thing in common. They all have some personal version of "god" and not one of them agrees with the other.
As an atheist, what am I to make of this diversity? Well, these claimed deities cannot all be true because they all disagree. Each of them also disagrees with their holy books, whereby they all cite their holy book of choice when convenient, yet dismiss the very same book when convenient. I must therefore conclude that their holy books are fundamentally unreliable. Each of them cites their church as an authority when convenient and dismisses that same authority when convenient.
What conclusion might one draw from that? Simple. They are all making it up.
As the corner theists in general find themselves painted into by the relentless advance of science, the arguments for god become increasingly based on logical fallacies and semantic quibbling.
In that regard, I would recommend Sean Carroll, but my experience is that theists in general do not understand that.
The bottom line is that "god" has run out of gaps in which to hide.
We are left with a deity who ignored Homo Sapiens Sapiens for the first 180,000 years, briefly showed up to cast a hatload of immoral rules in a tiny region of the world and then vanished without trace. Europeans, indigenous Americans, antipodeans, chinese they can all go *** right off. "god" doesn't care.
"Loving god" my bum. "Can't give a flying **** god" might be more accurate.
Now, without doubt, there will be some who object that this is not the "god" to which they adhere. That in itself is interesting. We as humans number 7 billion or so. Of those, over half believe in the Abrahamic god. It seems to me that our theist protagonists here have invented their own peculiar version of "god" which simply comports to their own desires. Atlas has a heretical version of islam, GC has his own version of xtianity, Neo has some version of I don't know what, CL is the ultimate a-la-carte catholic, and so on and on.
All of them have one thing in common. They all have some personal version of "god" and not one of them agrees with the other.
As an atheist, what am I to make of this diversity? Well, these claimed deities cannot all be true because they all disagree. Each of them also disagrees with their holy books, whereby they all cite their holy book of choice when convenient, yet dismiss the very same book when convenient. I must therefore conclude that their holy books are fundamentally unreliable. Each of them cites their church as an authority when convenient and dismisses that same authority when convenient.
What conclusion might one draw from that? Simple. They are all making it up.
