How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

You don’t think that science can study whether or not hurting people is good for society? Or whether we desire something? Irrelevant really, just wondering why you picked these two things to focus your throw-away “science can’t x” comments on.

The desirability of well-being actually doesn’t have to be a fact for well being based moralities to be realist. A person may not desire wellbeing at all, but that won’t change what does and doesn’t promote wellbeing.

Sure, people can give you reasons. That rational self interest and blind construction would lead you to their moral propositions, for example. But...ultimately, your desires ( or lack thereof) are your own and no issue whatsoever for realism.

Realism states only that some fact of a matter is the point of reference for moral propositions. Not that you have to give a shit.

It's interesting really because what realism means, the way as you and Vulcan have defined clearly over and over again in these forums (and from the videos I have seen on YouTube), many atheists here who would identify as subjectivists when it comes to morality would actually be moral realists but not realize they are.

---

I'm not sure what the original argument was as the link in the original post was removed. But, luckily, a "how-to guide" is not necessary for defeating arguments for god's existence because, the fact is, there is no argument, empirical or otherwise, for god's existence that actually makes a convincing case.

You'd think that after thousands of years of pondering this same issue, Christians, or other religious organizations, would've come up with something new. They haven't. It's almost as if rather than finding more and more evidence for god, we've found less and less as time goes on. Meaning, not only are we not finding evidence for god as time goes on, we're also finding alternative, logical explanations for things we before attributed to god.

Imagine that.

Exactly. Bayesian probabilities and all that. Progressivism in naturalistic explanations with gradual decline in theistic explanatory power can only lend more credence to naturalism.