Howard

I'm not sure what the most unconvincing argument for atheism is, but the most disappointing argument is the one that says atheist women having no morals and sleep with any and everybody. Talk about erroneous premises leading to invalid conclusions�

nermal

Arguments of biblical errancy would, in theory, work only against the biblical inerrantist. When arguing against a belief in god, it's pointless to get into the details--it's a bit like arguing about the kind of brick used in constructing a building whose very existence is in question.
The only real argument for a lack of belief in god is a lack of evidence for its existence. Occam's razor is the most effective tool for this, though it is not absolute. The argument must go thus:
What can be better explained, with more satisfactory resolution of the questions raised by observation, by the existence of god than by other means sans creator?

The answer, of course: nothing. Raising god as an explanation for an unknown mearly answers an unknown with an unknowable, and is therefore a pointless endeavor.
Belief, when it pertains to a question of physical existence, is a reaction to experience; either one's own, or the communicated experience of another. The experience of others, if real, can be verified, and therefore indirect belief can be justified. When there is no impetus for one's own belief, and no verifiable impetus for the communicated belief of another, then belief becomes irrational.


Ed