What are some good checkmate arguments against religion?

[MountainsWinAgain]

I'm only familiar with Epicurus saying:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Are there any more sayings like this? Do you have any of your own arguments?

Thanks in advantage.

[Chad32]

I don't know of any big checkmate arguments. Especially since religious people will obviously twist christianity into whatever way they need to conform to their beliefs without abandoning it. You could point out the things that were acceptable in the book that wouldn't hold water in any modern court. You could show them how theocracies don't work. You can show them all the inconsistencies and contradictions. You could even just point out that they have no more hard evidence for their book than any other religious text.

In short, it's probably best to deal with things on an individual basis, than look for one mindblowing thing to trump all believers. If all else fails, just ignore the person.


Well, there is one thing I came up with. I just say I don't accept the basic premise of punishing an innocent to play for the crimes of the guilty, to save them from infinite torture for finite sins.

[Ryantology]

There are few arguments against religion which aren't checkmates. However, the theist is just going to insist that there are invisible pieces on the board that only they, having the proper faith, can see and interact with, and those invisible pieces will always be able to get their 'king' out of danger, no matter what--usually by swatting all of the pieces off the board and claiming victory, just like a petulant toddler.

[Chad32]

There are few arguments against religion that aren't checkmates. However, the theist is just going to insist that there are invisible pieces on the board that only they, having the proper faith, can see and interact with, and those invisible pieces will always be able to get their 'king' out of danger, no matter what.

That's true. Honestly there's so much on our side that the only reason religion is still around is because of the uneducated and indoctrinated. There's just not much that can penetrate some people's walls.

[One Above All]

Two words that can be used against any and all theist arguments: Prove it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

'If God is all powerful and desires that all come to salvation, why does he allow different interpretations of his holy word? Isn't that rather like pre-damning all but whichever tiny minority happened to get it right?'

Boru

[Bob Kelso]

The Abrahamic religions can be dismissed with a simple hypothetical;

"If God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and morally perfect... then why has it not used it's infinite wisdom, and power to find better solutions? Why does it fail to act to protect the innocent if it is literally everywhere? Furthermore, why, if there are such dire consequences to disbelief, is there no evidence for God's existence?"

[Napoléon]

There are few arguments against religion which aren't checkmates. However, the theist is just going to insist that there are invisible pieces on the board that only they, having the proper faith, can see and interact with, and those invisible pieces will always be able to get their 'king' out of danger, no matter what--usually by swatting all of the pieces off the board and claiming victory, just like a petulant toddler.

[Rampant.A.I.]

There are few arguments against religion that aren't checkmates. However, the theist is just going to insist that there are invisible pieces on the board that only they, having the proper faith, can see and interact with, and those invisible pieces will always be able to get their 'king' out of danger, no matter what.

That's true. Honestly there's so much on our side that the only reason religion is still around is because of the uneducated and indoctrinated. There's just not much that can penetrate some people's walls.

[Simon Moon]

One of the many nails in the coffin of the Abrahmaic religions is this.

The omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe has the most important message, ever, to communicate to his loved creation. He allegedly really wants us to join him, so he has every reason to make sure we know the truth. He has any method he wants at his disposal to make sure this vital message is communicated, and every reason to want it to be communicated.

So how does he do this?

He appears to one of the most illiterate, barbarian tribes on the planet, talks to a few of them directly. They then wait for centuries (in the case of the OT) to record any of it. And they do it in ancient languages, that he should know would die out, would be edited, mistranslated, subject to copy errors, and manipulation by the powerful.

Anyone here could think of better ways to communicate this vital message.

Titanium plates, stored in a way to preserve their message, in every language spoken or will be spoken (he should know this), would be way better than what allegedly happened. I'm just a human and even I can think of a better way. But again, this is a god that could not defeat a tribe because they used Iron Chariots. So, he's not that Omnipotent.

But no, what we actually have is a set of texts that look an awful lot like every other mythology. And much of it borrowed from Ugarit mythology written about 1000 years before the Bible.

And Christians wonder why we're not impressed with their tiny, tribal, war god.