Let's be honest

[The Grand Nudger]

Through the looking glass now, I guess. Seriously not believing in gods, is complimentary to believing in gods.

[Neo-Scholastic]

When you stare into the abyss, sometimes the abyss looks back.

[The Architect Of Fate]

When you stare into the abyss, sometimes the abyss looks back.

Nah the abyss is far too polite to stare.

[The Valkyrie]

When you stare into the abyss, sometimes the abyss looks back.

Nah the abyss is far too polite to stare.

When I stare into the abyss, thr abyss pretends it wasn't looking, kinda shuffles its feet, and walks away embarrassed.

[Fake Messiah]

I'm very curious, genuinely interested, are there are "arguments" that theists have provided for proof of a God's existence (not even the Christian God), that you found compelling? 

No, I have not found any compelling argument for magic being real.

[Anomalocaris]

Well, okay so if we are being honest then as a believer I have to say that serious atheism...the kind that is not just a negative reaction to religion or simple lack of belief; but rather, a deep reflection on the absurdity of the human condition in a world devoid of transcendence...that kind of bold and noble atheism that dares to look into the abyss.
..serious atheism like that is more complimentary than opposed to theistic belief.

any atheism based on a look at some perceived absurdity of human condition is not a real atheism but just another of the same sort as theism where wishes and fears over ruled cool observation.

[Anomalocaris]

When you stare into the abyss, sometimes the abyss looks back.

when your fear makes reality seem like an abyss, and you give into that fear, then you just made a dumb and intellectually and morally cowardly theist out or a potentially rational human being.

[Belacqua]

OK, reaching out to my agnostic/atheist friends.  I'm very curious, genuinely interested, are there are "arguments" that theists have provided for proof of a God's existence (not even the Christian God), that you found compelling?  Or caused you to pause and perhaps say, there might be A God out there?

I suppose it's easier to say which arguments are definitively NOT compelling. These would include all the literalists' desperate attempts to claim that Noah's ark has been discovered in Turkey, or Pharaoh's chariot wheels have been discovered at the bottom of the Red Sea -- flimsy archeological evidence. 

Likewise apparitions of the Virgin Mary in stains on walls, or things like that. 

Much more compelling are the arguments from philosophers. I actually knew a guy who went to grad school to write about Aristotle and ended up Catholic. I remain unpersuaded but I also know that I am ignorant of the full implications and most complete versions of these systems. In fact it might be better not to say "argument," as if that's something you could present in a soundbite during a debate. It's always the full system that seems logical and internally coherent, as well as hard to falsify definitively. 

Certain versions of Aristotle's system, Neoplatonism, Spinoza, and others remain, for me, open questions. 

I found that when it's all broken down in most debates, an agnostic/atheist boils down to moral arguments/judgments against God, which in and of themselves does not disprove there being a God per se.  Just that they refuse to accept a God they find reprehensible.

Yes, we hear this kind of thing all the time, on this forum and on similar sites. "If God is so great why do kids get cancer?!?!" I agree this is a powerful argument against certain conceptions of God that are presented by some Christians. Since many atheists think of this as the only conception of God that Christians can have, it seems definitive to them. The argument is, "If I were God I would do certain things, and since no one is doing them [e.g. keeping kids healthy] then there can't be a God."

In the end though I doubt that many people decide one way or another based on one or two arguments. Acceptance of a religious worldview or a naturalist one is probably due to a web of experiences and influences. A logical syllogism-type argument that seems persuasive to a person of one background will not seem so to others. (And by "background" I don't just mean that a person was taken to church as a child. We all live in societies with various crosscurrents, and the "science equals truth" motto is strong even in majority-Christian parts of the country.) 

The most powerful "argument" for me was the first time I went to the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. I was 17 and had grown up in a town where the largest indoor space was the basketball stadium. The overall sensory experience of the light, the music, the incense, the overwhelming beauty of the architecture, made me think, for about 10 minutes, "It's all true." Pretty quickly I had persuaded myself that it was "just aesthetics" and I shouldn't read too much into it. After many years of studying aesthetics, though, I think that "just aesthetics" may not be as good a counter-argument as I thought.

[Astreja]

There are two factors in particular that predispose me strongly towards atheism.

First of all, the lack of testable empirical evidence for any god is quite bizarre.  It's obvious that many people value the idea of a god and want one in their lives, but if you ask "Well, where is your god?" the usual response is some apologetics about free will or the importance of faith.  We can photograph an atom and we can see the JADES-GS-z13-0 galaxy over 14 billion light years away, but can't detect any physical traces from a super-powerful being that supposedly intervenes in mortals' lives on a regular basis?  Does. Not. Compute.  If you have to make up philosophical excuses or position your deity in some other location (a conveniently inaccessible and untestable one, of course!) maybe there really is nothing there.

And secondly, believers can't even agree on which god or gods to worship.  Even in related monotheistic traditions there are baffling and irreconcilable differences that make it impossible to know which, if any, is the right path.  If you can't even agree among yourselves, why should I take any of you seriously?

[Anomalocaris]

A strong indication that no claim of existence of god has any basis in intellectual honesty and this are worth the most minimal reexamination is the fact not a single such claim tries to be minimal. In other words, not a single one even pretend that it posits what is the most parsimonious explanation for what it purports to explanation. Every last one of them are overreaching baroque, in the style of a big lie is more likely to be believed than a small one.