Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[Mr.wizard]

I don't need to refute Christianity or argue against Christianity. It is self-defeating.

To say that something is self-defeating is a positive statement requiring an argument and evidence.

You may be right, of course, but merely asserting it doesn't advance the ball.

---

I wanted to come back to this because this has to do with the OP. I firmly believe you are correct, the arguments listed cannot persuade a belief in God. My intent was to point out that belief in God is not irrational and can therefore be discussed in a reasonable manner and with respect. 

An interesting dynamic can be observed on both sides. 

There are Christians that think they can come in and with a little typing change your minds. I think all of them are sincere, These range from people who are sincere but unprepared (either factually or cognitively) to those that want to learn what the objections are and research and come back. The first group is frustrating to everyone else (including the second group). 

The very same thing happens with atheists. They think if they type "there is no evidence for gawd or jebus" that they win. They are often unprepared (either factually or cognitively). Some feel the need for shock, contempt, and/or derision.  Others know the arguments and can engage in a productive and civil dialog. 

A comment about the atheist that feels the need for shock, contempt, and/or derision toward theists or Christians in general: it is juvenile and shows a lack of character. Whether God exists or not and whether Christianity is true has been debated for millennium. There is nothing new that you can bring up that has not been discussed and written about to a staggering degree by people way smarter than those here (on both sides). There has been no new discovery that makes our generation more enlightened than the previous. You do not have a monopoly on truth. Intelligent people can agree to disagree with civility.

I agree, and you've echoed the main point of the OP very nicely, I think. Stupid arguments on both sides are pointless. And it is just as POINTLESS for a skeptic to parrot "There is no evidence for God" (Since there is circumstantial evidence, at least.) than it is for the believer to chant, "God said it. I believe it. And that settles it." (No, it really doesn't settle anything.)

However, after reading through a lot of older threads, it appears that this forum is (for the majority of its members) less about serious apologetics and more about having a place to vent and feel safe after being hurt by negative experiences in the past. You can view some old posts/polls that show how many people here are former Christians, for example. There are some exceptions, and you can usually tell when someone is giving you serious thought and not just mockery of the "buy-bull", etc.

So, I'm hoping for some GOOD discussion, and I plan on harpooning stupid thinking whenever I encounter it. Naturally, I expect the same in return.

Can you give me an example of the circumstantial evidence for god?