What about hitchen's razor? Because as we know there is minimal proof of any gods and so we would only need minimal evidence against gods to invalidate the theory of gods. I don't know whether I have misinterpreted the razor so if anyone would care to correct me please do.

[quote]You may not be able to disprove it directly, but if you can invalidate everything brought up in the religious texts, that pretty much checkmates them, since that is the only type of "proof" they have. And I use that word laughingly because it is a book written by men, not a damn god.[/quote]

It's very hard to invalidate everything written in the Christian bible (I don't know much about other religious holy books) since a fair amount of what it includes is referenced in other historical works of the time. On the point of disproving, it's realistically impossible to disprove something as you'd have to search through every part of the universe (and other universes, should they exist) to find it. For example: I could claim that the world's greatest chess playing cow is in orbit around the outer ring of the Milky Way and you couldn't disprove that unless if you observed every single part of the out ring of the Milky Way at once and didn't find that cow. As a god would only exist in a spiritual realm of which access cannot be obtained to while alive, you cannot "disprove" it. [spoiler]Burden of proof is fun. I should right a PSA about it.[/spoiler]

The big one is creationism, if you can prove beyond a doubt that it is impossible for the human race as we know it to originate from two human beings, then you are off to a good start. And it baffles me that people can believe that every creature that exists today could fit on a boat, and that they would have travelled across the entire world to get there. I wonder what the total volume of 2 of every animal that exists today would be. That would be a big ass boat.