unconvincing arguments for god
August Berkshire has a list of "34 Unconvincing Arguments for God" at Minnesota Atheists (h/t: PZ Myers at Pharyngula) wherein he analyzes Euthyphro's Dilemma, Anselm's ontological argument, and dismisses claims based on fine-tuning and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These passages are my favorites:
(3) Holy Books - Just because something is written down does not make it true. This goes for the Bible, the Qur'an, and any other holy book. It is circular reasoning to try to prove the god of a holy book exists by using the holy book itself as "evidence." [...](4) The Argument from Historical Settings - This argument states that because historical people and places are mentioned in ancient stories, that everything else about those stories, including descriptions of supernatural events, must be true. By this argument, everything written in the Iliad, including the intervention of the ancient Greek gods, must be true.
(14) "Pascal's Wager" / Faith [...]
Part of Pascal's Wager states that you "lose nothing" by believing. But an atheist would disagree. By believing under these conditions, you're acknowledging that you're willing to accept some things on faith. In other words, you're saying you're willing to abandon evidence as your standard for judging reality. Faith doesn't sound so appealing when it's phrased that way, does it? [emphasis in original]
Bravo!