What is the main argument against religion?

[RuleBritannia]

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No proof.

Hi there Weston. Welcome to Ratz.


Thinking about it - most religious arguments boil down to "Oh yes it is!" "Oh no it isn't!" in the end. It is rare that you can do anything more than sow a seed or two of doubt. With christians it can be enjoyable showing that you know more about their babble than they do - and where all the bodies are buried. Realistically though, you can rarely manage to do much more than carve your initials in the slab of their faith - but if enough of us do that, cracks form in the end.

[Weston]

No proof.

Well here's proof you exist! You post therefore you am!

Welcome!

Thanks Rum.

Today you are you, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is youer than you.
~ Dr. Seuss

[Weston]

No proof.

Hi there Weston. Welcome to Ratz.


Thinking about it - most religious arguments boil down to "Oh yes it is!" "Oh no it isn't!" in the end. It is rare that you can do anything more than sow a seed or two of doubt. With christians it can be enjoyable showing that you know more about their babble than they do - and where all the bodies are buried. Realistically though, you can rarely manage to do much more than carve your initials in the slab of their faith - but if enough of us do that, cracks form in the end.

Thanks Xamonas Chegwé

Recovering christians can be tiring though.

[Coito ergo sum]

What do you think is the main argument against the claims made by religion? Which is the most effective strategy when confronting believers?

The main argument about religious claims is that they are not demonstrably true. We conclude that certain assertion is in accord with reality because it can be demonstrated to be in accord with reality. Where a claim cannot be demonstrated to be in accord with reality, we do not accept it as true.

That being the starting point, we may give an example like: There are a race of people called the Gingits on the fourth planet of the Gingit star system in the Andromeda galaxy. We would only accept that statement as true, if it can be demonstrated to be true.

Then move to a religious claim - there exists a hell to which all non-believers will go that consists of fire and brimstone. That claim has not been demonstrated to be true, so like any other assertion, we should not accept it as true.

Follow up by asking the believer why he or she treats that claim differently than any other claim, such as the Gingits claim. They will typically fall back on some sort of Pascal's Wager, "what if you're wrong" argument, or argument from Biblical or Qu'ranic authority and such.

You can then proceed to ask them to explain why they think the Bible or the Qu'ran are reliable. Or, on the Pascal's Wager issue, you can explain the fallacy of Pascal's Wager, and point out that once they pick one religion, they are rejecting the rest and exposing themselves to the same Wager. At best, they have a slightly lower chance of going to hell.

[Svartalf]

Basically the fact that what they claim cannot be true

and if it is the fact that it's still not true, since they claim their deity is not evil and deserves worship... honestly, I'd worship Pazuzu before I turned to the judeo-chretin deity (including its extra stupid and control freak muslim variant)

[Trolldor]

The main argument against religion is "What is the main argument for religion?"