13 arguments atheists shouldn't use

[Aisha]

I find it an interesting list, it gives me some things to think about.

[robvalue]

Nice list, good job I mostly agree with this.

I think this represents the point that atheists can make things harder for themself by adopting tangential arguments, and inadvertently putting the burden of proof onto themself. If a theist wants to discuss their "God" and why we should take it seriously, it's up to them to define it and give their reasons for believing it's something other than their imagination. All we need then do is point out why the definition is unfalsifiable/incoherent or why their arguments are illogical.

But the arguments in the list can sometimes be useful if the theist makes other positive claims, such as religious people are more intelligent, or some nonsense like that. You can take on a burden of proof when you know they are making a falsifiable and demonstrably false statement. Not that you'll get them to admit it is false though, that's not how they roll :p But it shows bystanders the deceptive nature of apologetics.

[The Grand Nudger]

3 - God/religion is evil, immoral, harmful and bad because of (insert a verse from the holy book, a bad action practised by a religious person or institution like the inquisition, etc.) ---> The reasons we should dismiss and criticize religion are many, but religion or god are not wrong/false/don't exist just because they are evil and bad.

Good thing that argument as you stated it doesn't attempt to establish that god doesn't exist eh? As such, it;s not an argument to prove atheism or disprove theism, it's an argument to dissuade -even theists- from assigning moral credibility or authority to the god of the narrative regardless of it's existence. This one is actually my favorite, along with all of it;s variants, because it more realistic in it;s goals. Did you choose what you believed or didn'? Where you argued into or out of it? I wasn't. I doubt that many people are, and those rare occasions where someone thinks they may have been, I bet it's a misapprehension. They already had a position of shit in the periphery of the issue, they just never realized that their religious shit was the same sort of shit.

I don't expect to convince a lifelong believer that god doesn't exist, but I sure as hell expect to be able to find moral common ground with said believer that runs counter to their religious fealty. That's enough for me, they can go to their graves believing in doouchegod. I just want to make sure there's a moment of pause before they pull him out of their pants and stroke him in front of other people or when exercising their temporal authority...whatever that may be.

6 - Your religion is immoral according to my subjective morality ---> Attacking the morality of a religion, no matter how much you disagree with it, is not proof that god doesn't exist and that religion is false.

Related to the above, but more accurately stated:

"Your religion is immoral according to -our shared- morality."

That there is shared morality between two parties in a conversation is usually assumed, what with most of these conversations happening between people with a shared cultural and biological heritage. I've never seen anyone take me up on my offer to string a motherfucker up and/or torture said sadsack as payment for all of our parking tickets past, present, and future.......for example. and yet -......"Jesus!".

I think these two are the absolute best things going, and I think they're honestly the same argument. They aren't bad, you're just conceptualizing their use incorrectly, and expecting a greater result that could be reasonably projected. No real need to prove to a believer that their pet god doesn't exist (good luck there). Plenty of need to erode their pet gods credibility as a moral or temporal authority, regardless of whether a person believes in that gods existence. I'm generally aiming for a "who gives a shit if god does exist?" rather than a "holy shit god doesn't exist!". -but that's just me.

[thesummerqueen]

I especially advise atheists to never go with the we are smarter angle.

I've met a LOT of idiot atheists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Quantity is just a different kind of quality, dearest.

[Mental Outlaw]

I agree with most of these, but the religion being evil, and religion being a Mental illness are ones I'll still use.

[AFTT47]

Its been my experience that theists are rarely even interested in whether or not their religion makes sense on a logical basis. I have gotten the impression from quite a few that they know damn well it doesn't. They don't care. They are more concerned with what they get out of it. They get comfort and community and aren't willing to give that up. The only way they will dump their religion is if there is something they can replace it with that gives them the same thing.

I'm sure this is the main reason why theists often look at atheists as assholes - just for making a logical argument against their religion. They're thinking, 'I've got something that comforts me and I need it. For no good reason, you come in here trying to screw that up. You're an asshole!'

[thesummerqueen]

Being religious isn't a mental illness. Mental illness just exacerbates the things religion teaches you. Don't be thick.

[robvalue]

I think that many of these arguments could make a case for not adhering to a religion, even if you think it is true. For example, if I believed the bible is true, I wouldn't be a christian. And so if you can show people what an evil monster Yahweh is, maybe they would stop worshipping him, even though they still believed in him. I mean, people can worship an evil tyrant human and you could persuade them that it's the wrong thing to do, without having to prove the tyrant doesn't exist.

[AFTT47]

robvalue, I think that is an argument that has a better chance of succeeding than a logical argument against the existence of God.