Quick Arguments Against Religion

Information

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: 186
Latest Activity: Apr 4

17 members like this

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

View All

Comment Wall

Comment

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

Comment by Morgan Matthew on October 3, 2009 at 5:59pm: The views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people's opinions. Via

Comment by Morgan Matthew on October 2, 2009 at 4:10am: I think we need to remember that just about every Christian has two things in common: a belief in the sanctity of a book with talking animals and the expectation of being taken seriously. - Jason Long Via Nelson's page.

Comment by Morgan Matthew on October 1, 2009 at 5:58pm: The evolution of new body parts has never been observed...

We would not expect to directly observe the evolution of new body parts. Major changes occur gradually over long periods of time. Finding a new body part one day where there was none the day before, or even a generation before, would be better evidence for creationism than for evolution.

What exactly is a new body part? Most evolutionary changes are changes to existing structures, not additions de novo. We have transitional sequences showing the evolutionary transition of fins to legs, plus some understanding of the genetic changes involved (Zimmer 1998, 57-85). Do legs qualify as a new body part?

We also sometimes see duplication of body parts. It is not uncommon for cats to have extra toes, for example. Should not these qualify as new body parts? Via

Comment by Nix Manes on September 28, 2009 at 10:00pm: "I've outgrown the need for myth and superstition."

I don't need anything else.

Comment by Paul Tourville on September 28, 2009 at 9:12pm: Hey... BTW... Pruett and I will be at AAIC in Burbank this weekend... If any T|A'ers will be there, let's touch base! I'll the the one with the KitschKave Gear on!

Comment by Paul Tourville on September 28, 2009 at 9:09pm: Ultimately, tho... the "fairness" plea holds no water with respect to reality. There is what is real, and there is everything else.

Darwin's foundation, which, as I understand it, has been tweaked over time to fit emerging evidence, is to evolutionary biology what Newton's description of Gravity is to the real behavior of the Cosmos. It's close enough to work in most situations an Earth-bound observer, working on human timescales is likely to encounter.

Whether Darwin was a racist or a misogynist is not relevant to the empirical value or validity of his hypotheses.

Whether Darwin's hypotheses threaten the foundation one's morals is of no consequence to whether the hypotheses are consistent with reality.

If a person's morals cannot operate in the light of Darwin's hypotheses, then that person's morals are flawed, and corrupt, and in need of careful review and refurbishment.

Comment by Morgan Matthew on September 28, 2009 at 6:40pm: Evolution is almost certainly the most hated scientific theory in history. Many people think it threatens morals, civilization, and their very souls, and virtually nobody wants it to be true. Starting from the first day that Origin of Species was published, it has faced constant challenges from some of the most powerful politicians and religious leaders, not to mention incessant disapproval and attacks from the general public. The only thing evolution has going for it is the evidence. If that evidence were not extremely strong, evolution would have been torn to irreparable shreds decades ago. via

Comment by Paul Tourville on September 20, 2009 at 7:17am: Re: "In fairness, creation and evolution deserve equal time in science classes."

I would submit that "Creation" does not belong in Science classes.

Science begins from a position of ignorance, and through reasoned thought, observation and experimentation, moves to a position of workable understanding, which permits predictions based on evidence, and which allows refinement or correction.

"Creation" starts from a position of certainty (inerrancy of scripture), repeats the dogma, and does not progress. The dogma is not subject to doubt.

Therefore, "Creation" is not "Science", or "Science History", and, as such, should not be taught in Science classrooms.

Comment by Morgan Matthew on September 19, 2009 at 11:36pm: In fairness, creation and evolution deserve equal time in science classes.

Response:
The teaching of creationism does not belong in science classes because creationism has no science to teach. It is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. For the most part, creationism can fit with anything we find, making it unscientific. Where creation models do make specific predictions that can be tested against evidence, they fail the tests. Asking for equal time is asking for nonscience to be taught in science classes. Via

Comment by Thunder on September 17, 2009 at 3:59am: "Behaving like animals" does not mean anything, because different animals behave in different ways. A part of human behavior is the ability of people to learn and to modify their behavior according to cultural norms. Evolution teaches that people behave like humans.

Members (185)

View All

Welcome to
Think Atheist

Get Started Now
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

What's new today

1	Are people stupid?
2	We cannot think like our ancestors
3	Why do atheists ask for so much proof to believe in God?
4	The Racists Really Won't Like This!
5	Is Atheism a Religion?
6	Bill Nye Boo'd In Texas For Saying The Moon Reflects The Sun
7	It's little companies who are destroying the middle class
8	An Atheist's Creed