Quick Arguments Against Religion


Quick Arguments Against Religion

Do you think I'm going to hell? If yes, why? Why would God condemn me to eternal torture just for not believing him in the face of a huge lack of evidence? Why did he create me with my questioning, rational mind ...

Members: 179
Latest Activity: Aug 18

Quick Arguments Against Religion

ALWAYS point people who use the "open mindedness" argument here to this video
Mine goes like this (assuming I'm talking to a christian): Your religion teaches that if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior you will burn for eternity in hell. More or less. No matter if you are a good person, or are equally devout in another faith. The religion you have as an adult is hugely dependent on the time and place of your birth. If God chose to have you born today to a poor family in India, your chances of converting to christianity to be saved are near zero. If you were born in South America before the conquistador's came, you were not going to hear about Jesus. In essence, God chooses certain people to burn for eternity and they have no say in the matter.

Religion is like football. Everyone wants to believe their home team is special, but the fact is they only think so because they were born there.

there is no credible evidence for the existence of god. two things are generally proffered as evidence of god, scripture and the natural world (argument from perceived design).

1) scripture is mere hearsay, or as more accurately stated by thomas paine: "hearsay upon hearsay". hearsay is generally inadmissible in state and federal court because it is notoriously unreliable. if hearsay isn't reliable enough for use to adjudicate simple disputes, it certainly isn't reliable enough to prove absurd stories about a god upon which you think i should base my life.

2) the natural world provides no more evidence for the existence of your god than it does for the thousands of gods imagined throughout history, which is to say, none. our ignorance relating to precisely how this all came about doesn't justify your speculation that a wizard did it.

I like to play the morality card, e.g. what motivates you to be a good person? If the answer is religion, cue argument about people with different religions (or no religion) still being good people, thus morality does not come from religion. So, what's the point of religion then?
If they bring in heaven and hell, I counter by saying that if there is a god, I would hope that he would judge people on their actions (i.e. morality) rather than their superficial beliefs/practices.

Do you think I'm going to hell? If yes, why? Why would God condemn me to eternal torture just for not believing him in the face of a huge lack of evidence? Why did he create me with my questioning, rational mind if I was going to be punished for exercising it? If no, then there's no reason to bother believing in him anyway.

Do you believe in Zeus? Do you believe in FSM? How about unicorns or fairies? How about Xorplax, a god I just made up? Why not?... Well that's why I don't believe in your god, and why you shouldn't either.

I want to believe as many true things as possible and not believe as many things that aren't true as possible. The best way to do this I have come across is the scientific method. I require evidence to substantiate claims, and a preponderance of evidence to substantiate extraordinary claims.

Faith is a weakness. Faith is the excuse we give ourselves to believe something when there is no good reason to. Faith actively stands in the way of looking for evidence and seeking further knowledge. Instead of faith, let us use reasonable expectation based on observation, and use hope for the things we cannot control.

All religious beliefs are so far objectively unjustifiable. If you can justify yours, please do so. Personal experience is fine for you, but know that if that is your only basis for belief, you have no footing on which to convince others your religion is valid; it is entirely possible you have misinterpreted your experience, or that your senses were unwittingly impaired at the time.

These were found via Reddit. Please share your own here :]

Discussion Forum

Something to chew on

Started by Free Thought Monk Jan 12, 2013. 0 Replies

If man arose by chance, life would have no purpose or meaning.

Started by Morgan Matthew. Last reply by Tom Margolis Feb 26, 2012. 5 Replies

NASA proves the Bible to be true.

Started by Chris H. Last reply by Alexander Miner Jan 20, 2012. 13 Replies

this house believes that gay marriage is wrong

Started by mark julius r. batugal. Last reply by Brice Roughton Nov 21, 2011. 6 Replies

The Big Decision

Started by Free Thought Monk May 3, 2011. 0 Replies

Claim: Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact.

Started by Morgan Matthew. Last reply by Mr. Anderson Mar 10, 2011. 8 Replies

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Quick Arguments Against Religion to add comments!

Comment by Jake W. Andrews on January 5, 2011 at 12:49pm
Comment by Adrian on September 23, 2010 at 9:58am
It has often been asserted, correctly in my opinion, in recent years that there is no right to freedom from offence. If someone chooses to take a criticism of their beliefs as an attack on them personally then there is little we can do about that, other than give up our right to criticise, which should be neither acceptable, nor recognised as beneficial to society in general. We have all believed stupid things in our lives, until educated otherwise, and, if we are totally honest, there will be few of us who do not have some irrational belief or habit still. However, there is a clear difference between being told that our residual irrationality is just that, and being told that we, ourselves, are fundamentally stupid. "You are being stupid" is different from "you are totally stupid". And if they take offence at their beliefs being criticised, then they are "being stupid", and it should be permissable to tell them so, as it should be to point out the stupidity of the actual beliefs. Many of them certainly won't hold back from doing the same to you, whether you tell them or not! There are times when we should be offensive about certain beliefs, traditions and practices; it is the only rational response to some of them. We can not allow the taking of offence to dictate the agenda, or to restrict our own rights, especially the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should be subject to the accepted legal restrictions regarding the promotion of hatred or violence, but it should not be restricted by the giving or perception of offence, and it should certainly not recognise any special pleading on the grounds of religion.
Comment by Wayne Wilson on September 23, 2010 at 9:37am
the fact is that many identify personally with their beliefs. if you insult their belief, as far as they're concerned, you are insulting them, their choice in belief, and taking it personally they will react accordingly. they may attack you in return. but sometimes, it can't be helped. remember what was once said about making an omlette.
Comment by Adrian on September 22, 2010 at 2:11pm
Interesting, but I, then, have to wonder why you joined a group called "Quick Arguments Against Religion" and posted these two posts?

As I said before, there is a difference between ridiculing the people, themselves, (ad hominem) and ridiculing their beliefs. Are we never to correct the error in anyone's belief? No matter how wrong, or how destructive to themselves and others? Can we never call a fool, a fool? An error, an error? How then are we to make progress, at all? What, even, is the purpose of education?

Are you really sure that you believe that nobody knows more about life than anyone else?
Comment by Adrian on September 21, 2010 at 12:05am
@blrayner. Hell may not be a place to you, but it is very real and literal to many Christians. I try not to ridicule the individual for the act of having a belief, but the belief itself is absolutely fair game, and the inherent fallacies, falsehoods and contradictions should be pointed out.
Comment by Wayne Wilson on August 10, 2010 at 9:04pm
Religion depends on ignorance to survive. Especially in this day and age, with all the advances of science and medicine and the knowldge that has been aquired by scholars and researchers of the past few centuries has shown the conscious person much regarding the nature of the universe and reality, history, humanity and nature.
All of this knowledge must be put aside to mainain the faith that the major religions demand. This is the epitome of ignorance; purposely ignoring what is known to be true in order to hold on to false beliefs that give one a weak and unstable sense of security. Is it any wonder that the world is in such turmoil?
Comment by Mark Stout on January 24, 2010 at 10:09pm
I have started a new group called Atheist Philosophers. If you are interested we could always use more members.
Comment by Jacqueline Sarah Homan on December 14, 2009 at 11:53am
Simply put, Creationism is mental aroma therapy. It's "feel good" stuff, and it's an excuse to claim a "divine right" to some sort of privilege or undeserved authority. There is no "explanation" involved: just a permanent vacation while high on mental aroma therapy on the road of denial all the way to bullshitland.
Comment by Morgan Matthew on October 18, 2009 at 10:46pm
Scientific theories are always changing. You cannot trust what scientists say, since it may be different tomorrow.

Science investigates difficult questions about unknown fields, and scientists are human, so it is inevitable that scientific findings will not be perfect. However, science works by investigating more and more, which means results get checked and rechecked with further findings. The reason some findings change is because they get corrected. This process of correction helps make science one of the most successful areas of human endeavor. The people who cannot be trusted are those who are always right. Via
Comment by Morgan Matthew on October 11, 2009 at 11:39pm
Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation should be preferred. That explanation is creation.

Creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated. Via

Members (179)


© 2015   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service