13 arguments atheists shouldn't use

[The Grand Nudger]

3 - God/religion is evil, immoral, harmful and bad because of (insert a verse from the holy book, a bad action practised by a religious person or institution like the inquisition, etc.) ---> The reasons we should dismiss and criticize religion are many, but religion or god are not wrong/false/don't exist just because they are evil and bad.

Good thing that argument as you stated it doesn't attempt to establish that god doesn't exist eh? As such, it;s not an argument to prove atheism or disprove theism, it's an argument to dissuade -even theists- from assigning moral credibility or authority to the god of the narrative regardless of it's existence. This one is actually my favorite, along with all of it;s variants, because it more realistic in it;s goals. Did you choose what you believed or didn'? Where you argued into or out of it? I wasn't. I doubt that many people are, and those rare occasions where someone thinks they may have been, I bet it's a misapprehension. They already had a position of shit in the periphery of the issue, they just never realized that their religious shit was the same sort of shit.

I don't expect to convince a lifelong believer that god doesn't exist, but I sure as hell expect to be able to find moral common ground with said believer that runs counter to their religious fealty. That's enough for me, they can go to their graves believing in doouchegod. I just want to make sure there's a moment of pause before they pull him out of their pants and stroke him in front of other people or when exercising their temporal authority...whatever that may be.

6 - Your religion is immoral according to my subjective morality ---> Attacking the morality of a religion, no matter how much you disagree with it, is not proof that god doesn't exist and that religion is false.

Related to the above, but more accurately stated:

"Your religion is immoral according to -our shared- morality."

That there is shared morality between two parties in a conversation is usually assumed, what with most of these conversations happening between people with a shared cultural and biological heritage. I've never seen anyone take me up on my offer to string a motherfucker up and/or torture said sadsack as payment for all of our parking tickets past, present, and future.......for example. and yet -......"Jesus!".

I think these two are the absolute best things going, and I think they're honestly the same argument. They aren't bad, you're just conceptualizing their use incorrectly, and expecting a greater result that could be reasonably projected. No real need to prove to a believer that their pet god doesn't exist (good luck there). Plenty of need to erode their pet gods credibility as a moral or temporal authority, regardless of whether a person believes in that gods existence. I'm generally aiming for a "who gives a shit if god does exist?" rather than a "holy shit god doesn't exist!". -but that's just me.