What are the best Atheistic Arguments?

[fr0d0]

So lighting really is Thor angry huh? It's not superstition?

Don't be a berk Evie.

Are you claiming that our ancestors trying to figure out this world, albeit incorrectly, is not an attempt at rational thought?

Absolutely not. To make such an imprecise sweeping statement tho' is to completely miss the point. They had some great ideas too, from the first twinklings of animism. It's easy to mock now from the high tower of scientific progress, but I bet they could teach us a lot about what it means to be human and live in harmony with nature. We seem to have gone wrong where they weren't.

[theblindferrengi]

True, humans no longer have the ability to communicate with animals via reading body language, or the ability to eat raw meat without being sick. This is only on an individual basis though [you can relearn most of theese skills if you wanted to], and is a result of no longer adapting ourselves to our environment, but rather the oppisite.

[Eilonnwy]

Absolutely not. To make such an imprecise sweeping statement tho' is to completely miss the point. They had some great ideas too, from the first twinklings of animism. It's easy to mock now from the high tower of scientific progress, but I bet they could teach us a lot about what it means to be human and live in harmony with nature. We seem to have gone wrong where they weren't.

Yet it seems you simply deny the fact that these beliefs promoted killing people for sacrifice. The past was not some dreamy "talking to animals" and "living off nature".

It was hard, cruel, and highly superstitious. The people of the past tried the best they could to understand the world and the result was Aztecs making human sacrifices to keep the sun rising every day. This was their attempt at science.

[amw79]

Hitchens has spoken of religion as man's first, and consequently worst, attempts at science and philosophy, and I think that just about nails it....

And I think that's missing the mark so much it'd only possible if you really wanted to.

Of course it's not missing the mark. Think about older religions, how elemental things were attributed to gods. Anything was attributed to god that could not be explained. What is lighting?Well it's something Zeus throws down at you. How does the sun move? Apollo's chariot carries it from one end to another. Now that science has replaced most of these faulty superstitions, god has escaped to be "transcendent" and ultimately unfalsifiable bullshit.

Thanks Eilonnwy, for replying in my absence and articulating the point I was trying to make. But much more succinctly!!

[Edwardo Piet]

So lighting really is Thor angry huh? It's not superstition?

Don't be a berk Evie.

I was agreeing with Elionnwy's point that ancient religions would use gods to explain things that weren't yet known. When I agreed with her you then objected by saying that our ancestors were rational and not superstitious. My point was that, believing things like lightning is Thor when he's angry, is something that an ancient religion used as an explanation, and I was just asking "Do you not see that as superstitious?", if that makes me a berk it makes me a berk. I thought it was a valid point to make.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I didn't say that our ancestors were not superstitious - that's over stating the truth (ie ignoring the facts) to try to prove your own stance. What I said was it's fallacious to dismiss it all as superstition when there's clearly more to it than that.

[Eilonnwy]

All Hitchens said was religion was man's first and worst attempt at science. I agree with him, and we are not dismissing it all as superstition. We're simply stating a fact, when early man tried to explain something they did so with religion. Science tries to explains things. Religion is a piss poor explanation. Seems pretty straightforward and not at all fallacious.

[fr0d0]

Then what was science and not religion was always science and never religion. It's a common misplaced accusation scientists make of religion and to be honest I find it pathetic.

[Edwardo Piet]

I didn't say that our ancestors were not superstitious - that's over stating the truth (ie ignoring the facts) to try to prove your own stance. What I said was it's fallacious to dismiss it all as superstition when there's clearly more to it than that.

No you didn't explicitly say it. But when I said they were superstitious, and you said I was mixing up superstition and rational thought...I (quite reasonably I think) thought you meant that they were rational and not superstitious! I was not over stating the truth, I was going by what you said.

I was agreeing with Elionnwy that Thor's happen is a primitive way of explaining storms and lightning, but apparently I'm mixing up rational thought and superstition when I say that's superstitous!

So apparently it's rational to just make up an answer when you don't know something? A rational attempt...perhaps, but the thought itself isn't rational! Making up answers out of thin air that are total non-sequiters and have absolutely no basis, isn't rational!

No it's not fallacious to dismiss it as superstition. To dismiss it as superstition until any of those beliefs have provided any (the E word) or any argument whatsoever, is not a fallacy! If that's a fallacy then it's fallacious to ever call anything superstitious when it lacks any support. Apparently then, I'm being fallacious when I say that it's superstitious to believe that Santa Claus is real. I really shouldn't dismiss these things as superstition until they're supported

If you could argue that believing Thor is the cause of lighting is rational, then you could argue that every explanation is. There's a difference between whether it's actually rational or not, and whether it's attempted to be. A gigantic amount of things are attempted to be, and perhaps at some level of consciousness, everything is. Your brain does the best it can do. The question is, are these actually rational arguments, could you really say they're rational? No I think, I think making up answers out of thin air because you don't know the real answer, is superstitious.

Sorry, but I don't buy what you said. I think it's fallacious to assert that I'm being fallacious by considering something superstitious when it lacks argument, any real support, and when it lacks (the E word). When else do you expect me to call something superstitious?

Then what was science and not religion was always science and never religion. It's a common misplaced accusation scientists make of religion and to be honest I find it pathetic.

Sounds like shifting the goal-posts to me. Like you're saying Religion is only truly Religion when it's modern Religion which completely avoids any science issues. That's your opinion. The Religions of the past that tried to explain things, where still Religions to those religious people of the past.

EvF

[amw79]

Then what was science and not religion was always science and never religion. It's a common misplaced accusation scientists make of religion and to be honest I find it pathetic.

Sounds like shifting the goal-posts to me. Like you're saying Religion is only truly Religion when it's modern Religion which completely avoids any science issues. That's your opinion. The Religions of the past that tried to explain things, where still Religions to those religious people of the past.

EvF

Exactly. Religion still tries to explain remaining unanswered questions - i.e. what caused the big bang (god), why there's 'something' rather than 'nothing' (god); where our morality comes from (god); what happens to us after death (we are rewarded or punished, by god).

These are quite possibly empirical claims, which directly trespass on scientific grounds, and attempt to fill a void of knowledge with answers, for which there is no evidence. Hopefully at some point, science will illuminate these gaps of knowledge, and religion will retreat once more to an even narrower definition, eventually to a point were religion can longer make any claim of special knowledge on anything.