Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You've already been shown how long these arguments and their refutations have existed. I understand this is new to you and you seem enamored and convinced, but there's nothing to be seen here that most of us haven't already considered. Peril? You have grossly exaggerated the efficacy of your claims. There's nothing perilous in these arguments to an atheist's position. You would do yourself a tremendous service if you finished reading about these arguments at the link I provided.

My claims? I didn't come up with this stuff.

But actually, I have been reading, Cato. Surely you must know that refutations of the refutations have also been around for a long time.

Clearly, if theists had NO good arguments, the party would have been over for them long ago, wouldn't it?

This is like Obama calling ISIS the "JV team";  the potency of the opposition is being vastly underrated, IMO.

"Horse-hockey!", as Colonel Potter used to put it.

Theist arguments are designed to fool the credulous, the people who either don't think too hard about what they're hearing or who are already predisposed toward believing it (and thus won't think too hard about what they're hearing). Often, they're little more than philosophy double-think, running around in circles, such as:

1) Everything must have a cause. (Really? Is that so? How do we know that?)

2) We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, but we know it must have had a cause. (There was no "before", and also, see above.)

3) The only thing that exists outside of time and can be the first cause is God. (Because we just defined "God" into having those qualities.)

4) This nebulous concept of Pre-Big-Bang-God that I just defined into existence is somehow still the interventionist Yahweh of the Bible. (We're not going to think too hard about why that's self-contradictory with the Deist god-concept described in #3.)

Don't even get me fucking STARTED on the problems of the "Intelligent Design/Irreducible Complexity" morons, who (seemingly to me) deliberately make poor arguments that sound good only to people who don't think too hard or who who don't know real biology. As a former biologist who actually knows the things they're trying to attack, and who has seen poor argument after poor argument struck down, only to see the ID/IC crowd pop their heads up again with a new version of the same tired argument, I simply can no longer believe that it's not deliberate deception on their part (as opposed to self-deception, in which they can still think they're honest while lying their asses off accidentally) in order to sell books and/or push their religious agenda.

I have actually gone through several books of Christian apologetics and footnoted and annotated the logical and factual errors contained within, when my family sent them to me, complete with attached references to the correct information in well-established databases/journals, only to be told that I was being "hateful" for not accepting the falsehoods they were trying to peddle upon me.

And here you are, yet another one, after 20 years of listening to theists' bullshit arguments, each one thinking they're on to something clever, and each one completely unwilling to acknowledge when their arguments are busted by people who actually know how to reason critically.

I'd yawn if it didn't piss me off so badly!