Suppessing or Rebelling Against the Obvious, God!

[POI]

In a recent exchange with an interlocutor, I felt this statement below needed its own separate platform:

Universes coming into existence out of nothing..inanimate matter coming life and beginning to talk...astronomical odds being met on the first attempt...animals looking fundamentally different than their parents and grandparents.

All types of wild, extraordinary, voodoo, hocus pocus claims being made there...and they aren't even coming from religious books, either.

Above is a snippet, or tiny slice, of what I would assume some theists, (not only just the one making the quoted statement above), hold to regarding the perceived position the skeptical community takes to avoid the otherwise obvious, which is that 'god did it.'

In reality, at least speaking for myself, none of the above quoted 'reasons' were ever considered, in my path to later skepticism or doubt of the Bible god, let alone any god. My path to doubt had little to do with the above specific 'science' in reality. Sure, some 'science' was involved and dispelled my prior notions of the asserted Bible god, but the above apologetics, at least for myself, weren't included. But alas, the interlocutor has an answer, in stating that to be an "atheist" is still irrational, after being made aware of the following arguments above. Which-is-to-mean, that because of the arguments listed above, all should at least be deists.

For debate:

1) Which makes me then ask, are the above 'observations' some of THE reason(s) why some become a Christian, or a god believer in general? Or are these above apologetics merely added to re-enforce the pre-existing belief in the Christian god, or any god?

2) Would erasing the (4) argument(s) above lead the current believers to instead envelop skepticism? Or are the above apologetics merely 'add-on' arguments but, in reality, do not merit the actual reason(s) for one's belief?

3) As the interlocutor suggests, do many believers here hold to the same position, in that some of 'science' is just really there to suppress 'god'?

[SiNcE_1985]

In reality, at least speaking for myself, none of the above quoted 'reasons' were ever considered, in my path to later skepticism or doubt of the Bible god, let alone any god. My path to doubt had little to do with the above specific 'science' in reality. Sure, some 'science' was involved and dispelled my prior notions of the asserted Bible god, but the above apologetics, at least for myself, weren't included. But alas, the interlocutor has an answer, in stating that to be an "atheist" is still irrational, after being made aware of the following arguments above. Which-is-to-mean, that because of the arguments listed above, all should at least be deists.

For the record, this is an accurate depiction of my position.

To further expand on it...

1. Generally speaking, I give atheists credit for being intelligent, rational human beings.

*Again, generally speaking^.

Now, that said...

2. I do not believe that intelligent, rational human beings can rationally not believe in a god concept.

*In other words, you cannot be an intelligent, rational human being and not believe in a god concept.

3. That god concept^, at the very least, is some form of deism.

Every intelligent, rational human being should be, at the VERY least, a deist.

The debate among rational human beings should not be if/whether a god exists...but rather, WHICH God exists.

I could expand more, but this sums up what I truly believe is the case.

For debate:

1) Which makes me then ask, are the above 'observations' some of THE reason(s) why some become a Christian, or a god believer in general?

Yes. It is the reason why believers have reasonable faith.

Reasonable faith is to be distinguished from blind faith.

The various arguments for theism, and the various arguments against naturalism...is how reasonable faith is birthed.

We have reasons to believe our position, and reasons not accept the opposite.

Or are these above apologetics merely added to re-enforce the pre-existing belief in the Christian god, or any god?

Yes, it reenforces pre-existing beliefs.

2) Would erasing the (4) argument(s) above lead the current believers to instead envelop skepticism? Or are the above apologetics merely 'add-on' arguments but, in reality, do not merit the actual reason(s) for one's belief?

I don't quite understand the question.

3) As the interlocutor suggests, do many believers here hold to the same position, in that some of 'science' is just really there to suppress 'god'?

Definitely, science is used to suppress God.