What is the main argument against religion?

[TheGreatGatsby]

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

[Pappa]

The complete implausibility of all of them, as highlighted sharply by parody religions like Pastafarianism, etc..

Any parody religion is as plausible as a real one when judged by the yardsticks that the religious themselves use to justify their religions.

[hiyymer]

What do you think is the main argument against the claims made by religion?

There is none. Life is irrational.

Which is the most effective strategy when confronting believers?

why bother.

[Feck]

I think you have to be a bit more specific ,asking for all encompassing argument to defeat all religions is a tall order .

Simply,IMHO.No evidence for the truth of any religion and no way to tell which is the real one,if they are all equally valid or invalid how do you choose one ?

[maiforpeace]

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

The complete implausibility of all of them, as highlighted sharply by parody religions like Pastafarianism, etc..

Any parody religion is as plausible as a real one when judged by the yardsticks that the religious themselves use to justify their religions.

...which is confirmed over and over again with science.

You have many good arguments to pick and choose from. If you really want to engage a believer in this argument (which I too think is a waste of time), I would figure out what's most meaningful to the believer you confront, and argue that.

So, springboarding off of my reply to Pappa, religion impedes science.

Religion is harmful to both the individual and to society. Religion allows people to rationalize immoral acts. Religion is no longer relevant for the times - it's outdated.

[Pappa]

That's another interesting point Mai... that religion is now completely unnecessary. You don't need it to base your morals on (in fact doing so may give you some pretty unpleasant morals). You don't need it to explain how the universe works. You don't need it to explain who we are or what happens when we die. It doesn't really serve any useful function now.

[Rum]

You are here on the planet as a human being. That's about all you know (though sophists might untangle that a bit).

Given this, what on earth would make us think we were here because of a giant godfather in the sky?

..an absence of rather more sensible explanations - which have as it happens been steadily unfolding since the time of the Greeks and more recently of course the enlightenment...and so on.

[Azathoth]

It's ancient bullshit

[Pappa]

It's ancient bullshit

Is that Holy Cow shit?

[Elessarina]

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

It makes people forget basic humanity

[g8m3]

On a societal level, the best way to get rid of religion is education and controversy. An increase in science on television, as well as atheists continuing to put ourselves out there and let ourselves be known to the public.

On an individual level, it really depends on the person. Some people are, I suspect, unconvertible. But if someone is reasonably intelligent and seems to think that there is proof or evidence that a god exists, just keep shooting down their arguments as easily as you can, while at the same time reminding them of the inherent hypocrisy, immorality, and stupidity of the central principles of their religion. This forces them 1. To constantly look for more evidence of god (which is scant, and laughable where you find it) 2. Critically consider this evidence, to avoid the repeated embarassment of you deflecting it harmlessly into the air, and 3. Defend the moral implications of their beliefs, not to you, but to their own internal sense of decency, which will eventually lead them to find that they cannot reconcile their faith with their own morality.

Dawkins says evolution is the best, because it is so elegant, simple, and eye opening. It doesn't take a genius to understand natural selection, but it takes a serious tool to ignore its explanatory power.

Hitchens likes to double-team with 'here's why it's not true' and 'here's why that's a good thing'.

Harris likes to state very alarming facts and statistics and spell out the implications, for instance, "22 percent of Americans say that they think Jesus Christ will bodily return to Earth in the next 50 years, another 22 percent say he PROBABLY will. This means 44 percent of the voting public of the democratic republic represented by the most technologically advanced and powerful military in the entire world believes that sometime in the next 50 years the best thing that could ever happen is going to happen, but first the world must burn in global conflict. " His stuff is great for explaining to people why you're so vocal or why it's so important to you, as well as swaying people who just don't give a shit to finally pick a side and realize its important.

[Weston]

No proof.

[AshtonBlack]

No proof.

Not even any credible evidence of any supernatural events, ever.

[Rum]

No proof.

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

Welcome!

[cowiz]

Is this a serious thread on Ratz?

Go to your room and think about what you've done.