I am new but think I have the best argument for atheism

[Jrouche]

---

This argument only works if you are intelligent and well-educated, and you must be honest with yourself. This argument is great because it can refute any religion.
Okay. Imagine we are having a relaxed open and honest discussion with eachother. We have a huge stack of index cards. On each card is one of 1000 different religions, gods or belief systems from the present and past. But none of the cards have your religion on it.  I read the belief and all the arguments for it off of each card. Supposed holy books, witnesses, prophets, testimonies, eye-witness accounts, archeological evidence, ect. You tell me all the reasons you dismiss each argument. After we are a quarter of the way through something interesting happens. We no longer have to come up with new reasons to dismiss the ideas we can just refer back to previous cards. We get to the end of the stack, and surprise! Your belief is written on the last card. We could easily refute your belief by reffering back to previous cards.

---

It's more of a method then an arguement, and it's a bit gish gallop, IMO. It's also a bit of a Hasty Generalization. If your argument were stronger it could be done without the gish gallop, see min's pot.

Hello,

Welcome aboard. Hopefully you can use this forum as a place in which you can sharpen your debating and argument-presenting skills.

I think that currently the best argument for atheism isn't just to refute anyone's beliefs just for the sake of it.

The best argument in my opinion is that if we don't do something about the stronghold that Monotheistic religions enjoy and enforce today, then we can never even hope to solve violently urgent matters such as over-population, climate-change and the rapid expenditure of fossil fuels with no Plan B in sight.

Some people would argue that any of the above could be even more pressing than religion itself, claiming that religion is "harmless" and merely a means for the masses to seek comfort and a sense of belonging in something bigger than themselves. The problem is, solving *any* of the aforementioned problems means letting go of religion first, and in the most expeditious manner possible.

Lastly, may I suggest a text-color other than pink ? Took a while to make out what you wrote there.

If your strongest argument against religion is that it causes problems "we can never even hope to solve violently urgent matters such as over-population, climate-change and the rapid expenditure of fossil fuels with no Plan B in sight "  in modern times, you might have an issue there. Aside from the false cause fallacy, it reads more like an appeal to pitty. Religion is fairly "harmless" currently and can be a means for the masses to seek comfort and a sense of belonging in something bigger than themselves. It, historically, has been quite harmful. It currently uses it's position to influence governments and protect the abuses of children. I'd bet there are other societal structures that are more damaging in the modern era.

---

Thanks for the response. Sorry, I didn't know I was writing in pink. How do I change that?