God and arguments.
So at this point in my existence, I'm at full-blown atheism. The arguments for the existence of a god are empty, inconsistent, and have been refuted hundreds of times over the last few hundred years. See George H Smith's "Atheism, The Case Against God" for a thorough survey of the arguments in favour of the existence of god(s), and the refutations of same. This book was written in the 70s, and is superior to Dawkins ("The God Delusion") in breadth of content, depth of analysis, and tone (Dawkins came off, to me, as both rude and condescending, and didn't treat the arguments in favour of the existence of god(s) with a basic respect).
Meanwhile, a person that many of ye on my friends list (I'm not about to presume "who read this blog" :P ) know has found religion. I'm not going to name said person, as I don't want them to feel that this is a personal attack on them. To refer to a previous situation: http://brilyn.livejournal.com/121509.html
Said person has started talking to me about [a specific] god, and wandering all over the map with, frankly, gibberish.
Granted, some of that gibberish has managed to reiterate Paley's argument to design, and the 'fine-tuning' argument that Dr. Craig raised at the debate I attend back in January.
So here's my confusion: all of these arguments, all of them, have been thoroughly refuted. Completely, they have been shown to either Beg the Question (assert the conclusion as part of the argument (1. God exists. 2-5. whatever. conclusion: God Exists)), or just be based on faulty reasoning.
Given all of that: why the HELL do people keep reiterating the refuted arguments?
I wouldn't object if they brought up the refutations of the arguments, and explained why they felt the refutations fail, but they don't. In this person's case, they explain the f'ing 'watch' theory as if I've never heard it before, and then just stop. I'm tired of hearing about the damn watchmaker.
I'm not about to get in anyone's face about religion. I'm not going to stake out churches and harass the attendees as they leave. I'm not going to seek out priests/ministers/rabbis/sellers-of-this-nonsense and harass them (though I'd consider it analogous to nailing the drug-dealer, and cutting off the source).
However: if you bring the discussion of supernatural belief to me, and you're bringing refuted arguments from hundreds of years ago, *and* you have nothing new to add: don't expect to be taken seriously. I've typed out a few of the refutations for this particular person. I'm done doing your research for you...
From here on out, people will be getting: "go read George H Smith's "Atheism, The Case Against God" and come back to me. Unless you're responding to these criticisms, you're wasting my time, and you'll be upset when I treat you like a moron."
I *enjoy* reading argumentation. I *enjoy* reading rational discussion. I'm not locked into a 'god does not exist' position. I'm prepared to listen to any rational argument. The issue, at this point, is that there is no argument for the existence for god(s) that's withstood any refutation.
As there is no argument in favour of the existence of god(s), I reject the assertion due to the lack of a reason to accept it.