What are some good checkmate arguments against religion?

[Silver]

Or metaphysical. Or rare. Or unique.

It is as though theists are attempting to compare consciousness to wind, both which cannot be seen yet both can be experienced by other faculties which we have been given.

They seem unable to comprehend that a soul or any deity is not in the same category.

[jesus_wept]

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.

I'm not sure checkmate arguments exist because the theist will always come up with some contorted excuse or other but I quite like these quotes -

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

[Confused Ape]

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.

Where does Francis Collins fit in here? He's definitely educated and he says that he was an atheist who converted to Christianity. Sam Harris isn't convinced, though.

The Strange Case Of Francis Collins

Early in his career as a physician, Collins encountered a woman suffering from severe angina who appeared to take great comfort in her faith. She put the young doctor on the spot by asking him what he believed. This question shook Collins to his core. He says, “suddenly all my arguments seemed very thin, and I had the sensation that the ice under my feet was cracking.” Collins assures us that up until this moment he had been a staunch atheist.

How something breaks often says a lot about what it was. Collins’s claim to have been an atheist seems especially suspect, given that he does not understand what the position of atheism actually entails. For instance:

If God is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor disprove his existence. Atheism itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason. (Collins, 2006, p.165)

So, Francis Collins wasn't a 'true atheist'. This is ignoring the fact that his views of atheism are now coloured by his Christian beliefs.

A few minutes googling shows that he isn't the only atheist who converted to a religion. So, in my opinion, arguments about lack of education and indoctrination should be used with caution.

[Esquilax]

A few minutes googling shows that he isn't the only atheist who converted to a religion. So, in my opinion, arguments about lack of education and indoctrination should be used with caution.

Or rather, broad generalizations about that should be used with caution. Life is too nuanced to make sweeping blanket statements about all but the simplest of positions; exceptions to a rule don't necessarily invalidate the rule in a general sense.

That said, I do wonder why it is that so many of these "former atheist" stories we hear include such inaccurate portrayals of what atheism actually is. Sometimes it seems like every atheist-turned-christian we hear from was of the gnostic stripe, or rather, convinced themselves that they were after the fact to distance themselves from the more cogent atheist positions out there.

[paulpablo]

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.

I never understood this argument against god because you can see the response coming from a mile away, god leaves us to our own devices to judge who is good among us and it doesn't matter anyway because life is only temporary and god brings the people who suffered in life to heaven if they didn't die in sin.

I don't argue with Christians anyway it seems pointless to me, barely anyone in my country lives by the strict rules of Christianity there isn't even much of a Christian culture left. The bible itself is simply a ridiculous old book with nothing to offer. I don't know why anyone on this forum even bothers really.

Muslims I think are more difficult to argue with. My main arguments against them are...

1) God tells an angel to tell a man who can't write to tell some other people some words, in one language that I don't understand 1400 years ago. Why is this his best attempt at communication with me?

2) The contradictions in the quran.

3) God is merciful and forgiving yet if you don't believe in the verses of the quran and are of a good mental state and of the age of puberty he will actually drive this person into flames in the afterlife, roast his flesh all the way through, then create new flesh for him specifically for the reason so he can feel the pain of burning again, then repeat this process every time the flesh is burned through.

This means a boy who turned 14, read the verses of the quran didn't believe them, died of cancer when he was 15 will now have his flesh roasted until black and charred then replaced by more flesh so god can burn it and roast it again.

4) The quran also seems to have errors, although going back to point one I'll never be sure of this because the book is in Arabic.

[Confused Ape]

That said, I do wonder why it is that so many of these "former atheist" stories we hear include such inaccurate portrayals of what atheism actually is. Sometimes it seems like every atheist-turned-christian we hear from was of the gnostic stripe, or rather, convinced themselves that they were after the fact to distance themselves from the more cogent atheist positions out there.

It's the opposite of what some atheists in this forum have told us about their time as Christians. They really believed and tried to convert others to Christianity. Now that they've become atheists their views on the 'truth' of Christianity have changed. Francis Collins is giving us his views of atheism after he'd converted to Christianity. Why would anyone expect him to hold the same views he had when he was an atheist?

I think the real problem here is that some atheists think that all atheists are skeptics who take a rational and logical approach to everything.

Atheism & Reason - Are Atheists More Rational than Theists?

Atheism and skepticism should go together, but in reality they often don’t and many atheists are very unskeptical when it comes to all sorts of political, social, religious, and paranormal beliefs. There are many atheists who believe in ghosts, psychic powers, astrology, and many other irrational ideas — being an atheist doesn’t make them totally rational in every sphere.

From an article on the James Randi Educational Foundation site.

The Skeptical Disconnect

Skepticism can fruitfully lead to atheism, but as I have noticed, it does not necessarily go both ways. At the Freethought Festival, D.J. Grothe made a similar point in his talk when he noted our common philosophical underpinnings and entreated the atheist community to join up. Skepticism about God isn’t enough to foster a cohesive community of science-based individuals.

My view of the skeptical disconnect is that many passionate atheists have chosen an inherently skeptical topic in isolation, without providing themselves with a fundamental basis for determining the validity of other claims, such as in medicine, physics, or the occult. Surely, I am not suggesting that the majority of atheists fit this bill, but there is a minority who I think are missing out on the intellectual gains to be had from embracing a wider skeptical worldview.

Atheists who don't have a wider skeptical worldview could end up converting for a similar reason to why Francis Collins converted. Something hits them on an emotional level and they are then swayed by arguments which back up their new 'emotional insights'. Once they've converted they aren't going to regard atheism in the same way even though they know it means a lack of belief in deities.

[mralstoner]

My favourite argument is ...

The natural human threshold of belief is observable, repeatable, reliable events. When we observe something a few times this creates a feeling of certitude about those events, and this seeps into our subconscious as a fact, and this becomes part of our model of the world that we act in. This is how the brain works: it takes observable repetition to cross the threshold of belief.

However if something is unreliable or random, this creates a feeling of uncertainty. We do not know what to expect, hence we are hesitant to act around unreliable objects.

So, God, in all his wisdom, provides no credible evidence for his existence, and thus makes it incredibly difficult to believe in him. The brain is at odds with God. Why would God do such a thing? He must be a sadist.

[Chad32]

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.

Where does Francis Collins fit in here? He's definitely educated and he says that he was an atheist who converted to Christianity. Sam Harris isn't convinced, though.

The Strange Case Of Francis Collins

Early in his career as a physician, Collins encountered a woman suffering from severe angina who appeared to take great comfort in her faith. She put the young doctor on the spot by asking him what he believed. This question shook Collins to his core. He says, “suddenly all my arguments seemed very thin, and I had the sensation that the ice under my feet was cracking.” Collins assures us that up until this moment he had been a staunch atheist.

How something breaks often says a lot about what it was. Collins’s claim to have been an atheist seems especially suspect, given that he does not understand what the position of atheism actually entails. For instance:

If God is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor disprove his existence. Atheism itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason. (Collins, 2006, p.165)

So, Francis Collins wasn't a 'true atheist'. This is ignoring the fact that his views of atheism are now coloured by his Christian beliefs.

A few minutes googling shows that he isn't the only atheist who converted to a religion. So, in my opinion, arguments about lack of education and indoctrination should be used with caution.

He seems uneducated in the details of atheism if "what do you believe" shook him to his core. Not everyone fits the same mold. I suppose it's possible for an adult atheist to convert to a religious belief, but it's unlikely. Plus if one is so easily converted by a simple question, I doubt their newfound religious faith will be all that strong either.

[Esquilax]

It's the opposite of what some atheists in this forum have told us about their time as Christians. They really believed and tried to convert others to Christianity. Now that they've become atheists their views on the 'truth' of Christianity have changed. Francis Collins is giving us his views of atheism after he'd converted to Christianity. Why would anyone expect him to hold the same views he had when he was an atheist?

It's not that he has different views, it's that he's very nearly talking about a different thing: when he discusses the "blind faith" of atheists because god cannot be proved or disproved by science, that's necessarily a claim that only makes sense with a gnostic atheist position of there definitely being no god. I don't think I've ever met an atheist who thinks like that.

That's not to say they aren't out there, just that I find it interesting that Collins' new position on atheism focuses on the other extreme of the spectrum, rather than the middle of the bell curve most of us fall into.

[Mister Agenda]

So, Francis Collins wasn't a 'true atheist'. This is ignoring the fact that his views of atheism are now coloured by his Christian beliefs.

I think it would be reasonable to doubt an atheist's claims of having been a devout Christian if they were unaware of what their own denomination teaches. 'You don't have to be able to prove God doesn't exist to not believe in God' is atheism 101. 'Staunch' seems much less likely than 'never gave it much thought'. When he finally did give it some thought, he became a Christian.

I've met 'ex-atheists' whose testimony that they were atheists consisted solely of accounts of frat boy behavior and poor church attendance. It's not their fault that their pastors lied to them about what atheism is, but that still doesn't mean they were atheists. If they can't handle a simple syllogism like 'I was an atheist because I didn't beleive in God', why should I trust their word on the matter? Heck, I've met ex-atheists who maintain that everyone knows in their hearts that God is real...which means they never really didn't believe in God: anyone who has actually been an atheist has actually had the experience of not believing in God.

Unless by 'coloured by Christian beliefs' you mean rewrite your own history to conform to Christian cliches, a goodly number of ex-atheists are simply mistaken. I would place Collins as a casual atheist in the same sense his parents were casual Christians. I think this is a reasonable conclusion given his background. Do you disagree?

A few minutes googling shows that he isn't the only atheist who converted to a religion. So, in my opinion, arguments about lack of education and indoctrination should be used with caution.

Although I agree with your conclusion, your argument is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from some atheists converting to religion that people who are religous do not lack education; unless you grant atheists some special status of always being educated and immune to indoctrination.

---

A few minutes googling shows that he isn't the only atheist who converted to a religion. So, in my opinion, arguments about lack of education and indoctrination should be used with caution.

Or rather, broad generalizations about that should be used with caution. Life is too nuanced to make sweeping blanket statements about all but the simplest of positions; exceptions to a rule don't necessarily invalidate the rule in a general sense.

That said, I do wonder why it is that so many of these "former atheist" stories we hear include such inaccurate portrayals of what atheism actually is. Sometimes it seems like every atheist-turned-christian we hear from was of the gnostic stripe, or rather, convinced themselves that they were after the fact to distance themselves from the more cogent atheist positions out there.

I know of two convincing converts with previous cred as atheists that I have no reasonable doubt of having actually been atheists. In both cases, they had an SO for whom religion was very important and knew they didn't have reasons for conversion that other atheists would find compelling.

I could convert: the right words from the right person and I'm back in the Pentecostal church putting in at least a year of trying to convince myself that the religion I was raised in is true. As a known atheist, I could be virtual rock star if I pulled it off, and they'd probably try to find me a pretty wife to seal the deal (I'd have been married thirty years ago if I'd stayed in the church). I could write a book about my journey that would sell well in fundamentalist circles. I'm not sure how I would break the part of my brain that understands the evidence for evolution, but I could keep my mouth shut about that. I wouldn't be able to articulate a cogent reason for my conversion, but I would still know why I was an atheist and what an atheist really is.