In this thread I will challenge the idea that a general God concept is to be taken any more seriously than other similar mythological beings.
First of all I’ll make a clear distinction between internal reasons why something should be seriously considered and external reasons.
Internal reasons are those pertaining to the thing itself - how much explanatory value does the thing have, how much evidence is backing it up, and generally, how true it likely is. Essentially, reasons/empirical evidence why we would rationally accept a position.
External reasons are those pertaining to the consequences of already accepting a position or how worthy the position is of contemplation regardless of its truthiness, f.e. how useful can it prove to be for certain goals (which doesn’t have anything to do with truth), how many people are acting based on those beliefs , how interesting/aesthetically appealing it is etc.
The reason I make the distinction is that I will only focus on internal reasons here, since I care only about truthiness in this thread, or the probability of God claims being true, not how they can be (ab)used to manipulate the herd or how many people are acting based on those beliefs, which is usually the thing that forces other people, including me, to tackle those beliefs seriously.
The reason I made this thread is that I’ve heard far too many people claim they are theists and yet that mythological beings existing and fantasy don’t deserve serious consideration; I’ve noticed far too many agnostics claiming agnosticism about God, but being dogmatically gnostic regarding the non-existence of other mythological beings for which there is no proper empirical evidence either. Or at least, I’ve never heard anybody referring to themselves as agnostic in relation to mythology/fantasy (aside from God of course 
).
People so frequently claim with dogmatic conviction that dragons are made up, giants are mythology, Zeus is obviously false etc. but when it comes to God they say that us atheists “can’t know for sure”. Of course, they will get emotionally offended when the heretic disbeliever then points out that you can’t, really, know for sure about dragons, giants or Zeus either, but you conclude they don’t exist since the leap in probability is perceived as a small one to make by both, atheists and theists most of the time. Therefore, it’s inconsistent that they complain when atheists make the same leap about God. God and other mythology doesn’t exist about 99.999…%, just some stronger atheists go that 0.000…1% further and claim with 100% certainty he doesn’t exist, the same reasoning we both, atheists and theists, use about mythological beings.
Some claim God has explanatory power, but I’ve never seen such arguments logically go beyond the classic argument from ignorance logical fallacy and appeal to emotion or personal incredulity - we might posit a dragon as an explanation for some natural event, like a forest fire, but without proper evidence that dragons exist in the first place, we would just be explaining a mysterious event with an even more mysterious and unknown explanation. It’s far more likely that the fire was caused by natural, known explanations like heat and human neglect, wouldn’t you say?
Shortly put, the same kind of reasoning theists and atheists use to claim giants, dragons and Zeus don’t exist (lack of proper evidence, leaps in logic (fallacious logic), humans being prone to various psychological biases, intentionally lying or being delusional due to drugs) some atheists use to dismiss God.
And this is the problem most theists are faced with - to be consistent they would have to admit all other mythology and any other idea, or a system of ideas conceived by humans is possibly true just because they can’t disprove it, but they usually refuse to do so because it would put God on equal footing with other mythology and expose the poor foundations of their own beliefs.
Conclusion: We may not be able to know if God exists or not, but we can’t know for certain in plenty of other cases when it comes to mythological beings - to remain consistent and practical, because the concept of God lacks any relevant internal reasons to be seriously considered, I deem him to be unworthy of serious consideration like I would any other such concept.
I should add that my initial intent is not offending somebody but stating my thoughts as they are, without embellishment for the sake of other people’s emotions. This is probably the last thread I’ll create about God for some time so it in a way signifies my transition of interests to other areas of philosophy, which is reflected in the nature of my reasoning here as well.