What are some good checkmate arguments against religion?

[Ravenshire]

Well, of course. An actual checkmate implies that two people are playing a fair game on the same chess board.

This is rarely the case. Usually the theists are too busy knocking over the pieces and shitting on the board to actually get involved in a discussion.

[MindForgedManacle]

for every checkmate argument made by atheists there is another for theists, like the 5 proofs of the existence of a god by Aquinas

Aquinas' Five Ways, really? Couldn't you at least stay within the last 100 years?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't care - checkmate theists!

[Esquilax]

for every checkmate argument made by atheists there is another for theists, like the 5 proofs of the existence of a god by Aquinas

Please allow me to just... pick my jaw up off the floor before I continue.

Are you aware of the acronym PRATT? It stands for Points Refuted A Thousand Times, and it's fairly apt here, given the length of time Aquinas' nonsense has had to be refuted. Even a cursory google search would show you these points have been responded to at length, which leads me to believe that you don't actually care about the discussion, just about hucking as many "proofs" out as you can. Gish Gallop's aren't welcome here, and the fact that you opted for the single sentence "nyah nyah!" approach, rather than actually presenting what your argument is and why you feel it's compelling, does nothing to help your case.

My question is this: did you honestly think we'd never heard this stuff before? Did you think you were the first brave truthteller to come into our den of iniquity to spread this bold knowledge?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

for every checkmate argument made by atheists there is another for theists, like the 5 proofs of the existence of a god by Aquinas

Please allow me to just... pick my jaw up off the floor before I continue.

Are you aware of the acronym PRATT? It stands for Points Refuted A Thousand Times, and it's fairly apt here, given the length of time Aquinas' nonsense has had to be refuted. Even a cursory google search would show you these points have been responded to at length, which leads me to believe that you don't actually care about the discussion, just about hucking as many "proofs" out as you can. Gish Gallop's aren't welcome here, and the fact that you opted for the single sentence "nyah nyah!" approach, rather than actually presenting what your argument is and why you feel it's compelling, does nothing to help your case.

My question is this: did you honestly think we'd never heard this stuff before? Did you think you were the first brave truthteller to come into our den of iniquity to spread this bold knowledge?

I believe this was what you were looking for?

[Rampant.A.I.]

"Why's that" was supposed to be in response to:

I don't agree with the idea that saying that there is a better way is sufficient evidence for a religion to be bogus. Why should anyone care how it's told? What matters is it was told.