Creationism

[theVOID]

I like to say we are having nice talk(THEVOID).

Agreeed.

Ok so I think that it is reasonable to believe in religion because I know its impossible to dis/prove the gods. I can believe my self to believe that there is no afterlife. The reason I believe in my gods(or theogony as you put it) is because:
1.The creation story makes sense.

This is just personal credulity.

Firstly, just because something makes sense does not mean it is true, there are many concepts that make sense logically that are not believed by anyone to represent the existence of actual objects in reality, therefore this argument cannot be used as an indication of the truth of the proposition and thus is insufficient in forming rational belief.

2.Polythiesism makes more sense than Monothiesm.

How so? And like i said above, the fact that something makes sense does not mean it is true.

Also, the key question is not "does polytheism make more sense than monotheism" but "is polytheism more likely to be true than either Monotheism or non-theism" and to establish this you need a higher standard of evidence than simply assessing how much "sense" it makes to an individual.

3.That I have a belief that I can feel the gods. But not in a personal sense.

Ok, so what is this 'feeling' that you are attributing to Gods?

Do you have any evidence that this feeling was caused by a God? Is it logically necessary that a God caused this feeling?

If neither of the above are true then you have no good reason for holding this belief.

4.Moral standards are geneuine(i.e. doesn't promote slavery)

I agree that they are too, objective morality is achievable in Desire Utilitarianism (my preferred meta-ethical theory) without resulting to Gods or "intrinsic values" as objective standards though, so to claim that objective standards necessitate god's existence is once again fallacious.

5.No dogma.

---

This is not in any way related to the truth of a proposition. If Dogmatic God existed then Dogma would be expected. Since you have not shown that a dogmatic God does not exist, using the absence of Dogma as an argument for your theism qualifies as a bare assertion fallacy.

"A religion could have permissible moral standards and still be false because the God does not exist - this simply means that the individuals who constructed the religion had good morals."

Yeah but then if you are wrong atleast you believed in something that had good morals and was possible.

If you believe that God is all good? As in the problem of evil? I agree that a god that is all-good is something that is contrary to reality. But this is not an argument for your theism, which is what i am waiting to see still.

"There is no reason to believe religious claims, especially those pertaining to the existence of God. "

Yes there is, because you can't disprove it either.

Do you not see how flawed this reasoning is? Belief should be justified, there should be a positive case for the existence of such a being such as evidence indicating their existence or logical necessity for the existence. If one is justified in belief simply because something has not be disproved then i challenge you to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and if you cannot then by your own standards you should believe it to be true - Of course you don't however, and this just shows that you have a double standard, the argument that it cannot be disproved applies equally to both cases, yet you would not use the argument to attempt to justify a theology that is not your own.

"You mean that we need to judge the veracity of each religious separately? I disagree, any theistic religions (that posit God) can be rejected due to a lack of reason for their existence, be it evidential or through logical necessity."

I think so because every religion has differant applications and may have a good arguement. But if they didn't have any logic then well....

But absolutely none of the arguments can demonstrate that a God or Gods necessarily exist, and if that cannot be done then the internal arguments based on that assumption are irrelevant. In other words if God(s) cannot be rationally believed to exist then every belief system based on that assumption also cannot be rationally believed to be true as the assumption of God in the arguments would be a bare-assertion fallacy.

Do you see what i'm getting at? Without first establishing the existence of God as a rational belief to hold, all subsequent beliefs are irrational.

I notice you still haven't provided any arguments for your theism specifically...