Arguing Against God

 
John Wilkins brings up an issue that just doesn't seem to go away [Disagreeing with PZ]. He argues that there's a stupid version of religion and a smart, sophisticated version of religion. Wilkins claims that "aggressive" atheists are picking on the stupid version and not addressing the smart version. He implies that it's harder to refute the smart version.

This is what I reject about the Dawkins/Moran/PZ aggressive atheism - it takes the most stupid version of religion, argues against it, and then claims to have given reasons for not being religious. At best (and here I concur) they have given reasons not to be stupid theists. But a good argument takes on the best of the opposing view, not the worst.

John, I debate the existence of God. I have not ignored any arguments for the existence of God that I know of. If you think there are good arguments for the existence of God that I have avoided then please make them known to me. I'm not interested in any of the baggage that comes along with accepting the existence of God. As far as I'm concerned they are completely meaningless unless you can prove that God exists.

I'm aware of the fact that, C.S.Lewis, Jerry Falwell, the Jesuits, and Francis Collins have different concepts of what must follow once you accept the existence of God. Some of those concepts are "sophisticated" and some are "stupid." I don't care. I'm only interested in whether or not there is a God in the first place.

Looking forward to seeing your list of "smart" arguments for the existence of God I am,

Your Agressive Atheist.