I’m another one for “all of the above,” although I do feel that Pascal’s Wager might have the edge for being the most offensive. How many other things should I believe in “just in case” they’re true? When will I be able to fit my day-to-day activities in around the incessant building of altars and various methods of divination?
Or the substantially equivalent “God said it . . .” or "The Bible says it . . . "
These pithy quotes are just the right size for bumper stickers, which is where one sees such deep theological treatises as these. Rhetoric befitting Sir Tomas Aquinas it ain’t.
Don’t knock the eternal verities! They might be right! 
Okay, thanks…but it’s more an issue of “annoying” vs. “ineffective.” I guess there are three categories. On some level, all the arguments are ineffective – otherwise we wouldn’t be atheists!
But a subset of your list of arguments – for me, about half – have a bit of fleeting potential effectiveness, because instead of dismissing them out of hand as logical absurdities or obvious fallacies (e.g., the Hitler/Stalin thing), they at least make one pause and think for a moment or longer (before rejecting them).
That leaves the 25% or so which I voted for – the ones that are especially ineffective not just for their illogic, but particularly because they “annoy” – they inspire (in me) an emotional reaction which hinders clear thought entirely, and so makes persuasion even less likely. It’s no surprise that the current winner is the “moral” thing. Telling someone they coddle child murderers, or that they might murder a child themself, hardly sets the stage for persuasive argument.
Leibniz argued for a variant of the “Best of All Possible Worlds.” It was a little more sophisticated than the parody in Candide, but not a whole lot. Here’s the Wikipedia summary.
My favorite peeve is not mentioned: discuss evolution and the talk shifts inevitably to abiogenesis.
All of the above
I’d say the worst of them is “Without God, where do you get your morals?”
The others merely mark you as being offensively stupid. This one says “I am a sociopath only kept in check by my awe of my imaginary friend.”
Here’s another one I’ve heard: “You can’t be an atheist, because if you are, then who do you pray to?”
Armchair psychologist and application of the Hollywood atheist trope is annoying since it’s a red herring and derails discussions into details of everyone’s personal lives. It’s not relevant (maybe 2 + 2 = 4 makes you super depressed, but it’s still true) and if anything the opposite is true. Atheists are mostly found in rich nations that score high on happiness studies. Devastated peasant societies are the most fundamentalist places you’ll find.
you dont think atheists are cynical? moody? i think most atheists are critical minded people, it is what leads to doubting religion. hard to be critical minded and not wind up cynical and moody.
I’m twice your age. Tell your parents they shouldn’t hold their breaths.
Another stupid argument is that people who go to churches live longer, so god exists. In fact, reviews of atheist books in respectable publications are notable for never addressing arguments against god - only nonsense like churches fulfill a social function, so atheism is incorrect.
I don’t find any of these arguments as annoying as the stealthy “invite Nametag to a party and surprise! It’s at a church!” ploy. Only happened the once, but I was not amused.
And its cousin: For every person, there is something that is more important to him than anything else. For that person, that thing is his “God.” It might be his wife, or his country, or his wealth. So, every person is really religious, because everyone has a God.
Magnificently absurd! (Hey, everybody, my sister is God!)
Isn’t that essentially an *atheist *argument? Because it seems to me that they are claiming that belief is instinctive human behavior, and is not dependent on the objective existence of anything divine.
“You’re just closed minded.”
No, actually, you’re the closed minded one. I’m perfectly happy to change my mind on the subject if credible evidence suggests an existence of a supreme being.
You OTOH, just want to stick your fingers in your ears every time evidence is presented that contradicts the bible.
It’s hard to have an intelligent debate on the matter when the theist are constantly moving the goal posts every time one of their beliefs is debunked.
The most comical example of all these is dinosaurs living with humans.
Exactly, and very well put. As some Doper once said, if you need a book to tell you not to kill people, you’ve got issues.
Other: Horrible feats of incredibly bad logic. One of the most famous one is Lewis’s Trilemma. I.e., Lord, Liar or Lunatic?
Umm, or Jesus never existed, or his followers wrote his sayings done wrong, poor interpretation of ambiguous terms, etc. Good grief. To claim you’re using logic when your argument has such obvious holes annoys me.
Ditto any argument that argues for the existence of a particular Christian, Muslim, etc., God. But the same argument can also be used to “prove” the existence of Odin or Osiris.
Of course, once the holes are pointed out, they promptly stop using it, not!
Purely on a “it just gets under my skin” level, the first thing that came to my mind was “hey, Atheism is just another religion, your beliefs are based on faith just as much as mine are, since you don’t really KNOW”.