best arguments against religion (no theists)

hello everyone, I have heard a lot of good arguments against religion here, and even have a few of my own, but I would like to have a list of them I can reference.

so, I would like people to post their best logical arguments against religion/god here.

theists need not post here, this is not the place for debate, this is for the gathering of ideas from atheists only.

the ones that pop into my mind are:

--how can got grant prayers without infringing on free will? if you pray for a certain outcome, then people would not have the free will to do otherwise.

--how can evil exist with a good and omnipotent god?

--god cannot be totally omniscient without our futures being predetermined.

--an omniscient and good god has only one choice in any situation, which is to do the most good. therefore god has no free will.

--if god kept you out of heaven for following the wrong religion then god would be immoral for not showing you the right way, and since there are so many religion, either god does not care if you worship, or god is immoral.

--if jesus was the son of the same god as the old testament, then why are parts of the old testament considered wrong, while we follow the new testament. (referring to the death penalty for those who work on the sabbath, dishonor their parents, ect)

thats all I have for now. and once again, only atheist/agnostics should respond in order to keep arguments from breaking out here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the examples you bring up pertain to specific (or common) theologies. You haven't really argued against religion. Unless you weren't talking about religion in general.

- Religion is a hand me down preserved from generation to generation. It's built upon. Kind of like folklore or whatever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why argue?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not a theist, but I have to say that those are some pretty weak arguments you have there.

Not only are they not arguments against religion itself, rather arguments against the validity of specific doctrine/theology (Christian, apparently) like §outh§tar said...
But they aren't even very solid arguments againt Christian doctrine.

What, specifically are you looking for?
Are you looking to refute Christian claims?
Are you looking to demonstrate to people why they do not need religion, and it can actually do more harm than good?
Are you looking to attack the religious in debates or "set them free" from the shackles of religion?

What's your aim and goal?

 

No good has ever come out of religion that couldn't be gained by some simple enlightened self interest. Endless rivers of blood are spilled needlessly in the name of one god or another, only growing deeper as time wears on. Should one exist, any good god will have a little understanding of the wisdom in ignoring his existence. Howabout those?

 

Cato, your arguments are all based on ignorance of Christianity.
It's easy to prance around with strawmen.

 

Cato, listen to water. She has all the right answers. Only she. Never doubt it.
She, and only she, is the real god of this world.

P.S. I notice some ignorant christians have posted here anyway.

 

It doesn't matter, what she says is just her opinion, like this is mine. This is not an absolute truth (neither is that)

 

sorry for not being specific. I just want any general argument against god/religion. I prefer ones that can't be defeated logically, but just good examples of, say, holy wars that have killed a lot of people, or alternatives to religion, or anything really. as long as it is against religion/god and on a solid foundation.

the reason I only posted ones against christanity was because those are all I know. I will gladly take arguments against other religions, and religion itself.

p.s. please, if you are not going to post an argument, or a question about what I am looking for, please don't post.

 

Well here's a little direction for the thread:

You can't really argue against religion without assuming that another world perspective is superior. That being said, it would be more efficient here to argue for instead of against.

 

All religions have one thing in common – a conviction that some/all aspects of the universe are caused and/or directed by non-natural phenomena. We do not know if this is true or not but to claim it true is without foundation and to attempt to convince others this it is true is irresponsible. Without any precedent for non-natural phenomena and without any factual basis religious assertions are nothing but pure fantasy.

Our major problem becomes one of using reasoned, logical arguments to thwart arguments that do not use those rules. Religionists do not begin from a logical position and by their irrational assertions we can see that reasoned arguments will not or are unlikely to appeal to them, they would not be religionists otherwise.

Many religionists understand this and some create levels of expertise to counteract this – in Christianity these experts are known as apologetics. This discipline attempts to use logical “sounding” arguments and tactics to rationalize Christian assertions. Note that rationalization is the action of making something irrational appear rational, but be aware that the underlying assertion remains irrational. These arguments can be quite tortuous and on the surface quite convincing to the unaware and the gullible.

There is only one position to set before the religionist – prove your assertions according to the best methods that mankind has yet devised and proved – i.e. the scientific method. The religionist cannot do this and will argue against science.

What then are our choices? Continue to battle for better education in terms of critical thinking. Until religionists begin to think clearly then no reasoned arguments will be effective.

So cato, that is probaby not what you are looking for but to prepare arguments assuming that non-natural phenomena might be possible is to lose half the argument.

In the end the best argument against religion is - there is no evidence for religious phenomena - prove it if you believe otherwise - religionists have been trying for millenia and are still failing.

 

Cris,

What is 'natural phenomena'?

(I don't think arguing is worth much. What needs to happen is keep the children from being indoctrinated and that gives us chance to have a new generation of freethinkers who will agree better with rationalism)

 

let me worry about weather or not they will work, I just want the arguments.

 

the thing is, nobody cares about evidence, otherwise they would not be religious in the first place. what I need are ways to make people stop and think about their religion and, hopefully, realize just how impossible their god is. like the logical paradoxes I posted earlier. or at least strong reason why they should give up their religion.

 

you could ask them why they follow THEIR particular religion and not some other one.why is theirs The True one?

 

God doesn't comply with what I want god to be, therefore, I do not find it agreeable that this god should exist, therefore, god does not exist.

Cogito, ergo mundus talis est.
Cogito, ergo deus talis est.

 

We all know Descartes "proof of the existance of God" is his weakest meditation. The rest were pretty lame but that one was by far the silliest! Didn't uh.. some guy named Kant refute most of that purist rationalist silliness?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ok brother then enlighten me will you please, heres my arguement. I have but just one , are you ready.

An "omnipotent" creator would not make a mistake. And then REPENT for it.
(thats the whole Noah and the flood story, Im sure you know it)

It actually laughable.

Now enlighten me please.

 

Theists are stupid.

 

Most reasoned logical arguments presented within these forums clearly reveals there a lack of evidence to suggest supernatural phenomenae exist, let alone control destinies.

It's not the arguments that are the problem - it is the necessity for theists to oppose and reject them.