What are some good checkmate arguments against religion?

[MindForgedManacle]

And yet you keep referring to it as a "proof."

Plantinga himself ended the paper the modal ontological argument was presented in with:

[57] But obviously this isn't a proof; no one who didn't already accept the conclusion, would accept the first premise. The ontological argument we've been examining isn't just like this one, of course, but it must be conceded that not everyone who understands and reflects on its central premise -- that the existence of a maximally great being is possible -- will accept it. Still, it is evident, I think, that there is nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise. What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not thetruth of theism, but its rational acceptability. And hence it accomplishes at least one of the aims of the tradition of natural theology.

http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/r...tinga.html

It's a good idea to read the source material before you copy-paste arguments and refer to them as "logical proofs" or "logically valid."

Failing your reading comprehension, I see. It's clear hear that in this context, Plantinga is equating 'proof' with a demonstration. That's why he's saying people who don't accept the conclusion won't accept the first premise, and vice-versa. And I hate to have to say it, but as I have reas the source material, and read up on the relevant concepts, I actually understand WHY that is the case. It's not because the argument is circular, that is not what Plantinga is saying. As I've repeatedly said, his argument relies on the position known as modal realism and makes use of the concept of possible worlds. The reason why an atheist wouldn't accept the first premise is because it would entail that God necessarily exists, given the metaphysics the argument holds to. That's basically what the parts I underlined are getting at.

As stated:

Name a logically sound ontological argument, that doesn't require presupposition of the conclusion.

The author of the updated modal ontological argument admits it is circular reasoning, and not proof of anything. Which you would already know if it you actually read Plantinga's paper.

He did not say it was circular, he said that an atheist could not accept the first premise because it entails its conclusion.

You would do well to actually understand what is being said in the paper.

Time to sit down, and stop disrupting threads with lectures on "skepticism" and "critical thinking" when you aren't applying any.

I didn't disrupt te thread, I directly replied to a claim (not even having to do with this) that theists can provide a logical proof of God, and about how atheist-turned-Christian stories are bullshit. I agreed that they were, my only response was that most Christian-turned-atheist stories sound much the same. And then you decided to turn this into a thread about the ontological argument, as if I said I support it. I mentioned the argument merely as an aexample of proofs theists could provide, not something I accept.