What are the best Atheistic Arguments?

[fr0d0]

What you did was paint over a lot of things with the same brush that were actually very different, and then dismiss them all on that point, which is fallacious. It is very easy to discern between superstition and rational ideas. There's nothing magic about it as you would like to infer.

Could you please elaborate on that? Because I fail to see where you have refuted me at all. You have merely asserted that I pained a load of things that were different with the same brush. All I'm saying is that when there's a lack of an explanation for something, and something supernatural is just asserted as an explanation, then that's superstitious thinking because it's a big fallacious jump that's a complete non-sequiter.

I'm saying that you call everything "superstition" which does not cover religion at all. Superstition is precisely what religion guides against. As someone without religious guidance you are more at risk of falling foul of superstition because you have no way to discern it from anything else, which you kindly demonstrate.

And there's your gross misunderstanding. Religion has always answered questions of meaning and reason. Science explicitly seeks to understand what we have evidence for. The two are completely different.

(my bolding)

I have bolded the word "always" because I think this is where you are either making a huge sidestep or just a huge misjudgement. You are claiming that religion has always just answered questions on meaning and reason. And never scientific ones, right? Always just metaphors or 'spiritual truths'?....Really? always? And never scientific ones...ever?

Are you really so sure? And how can you be?.

Ok, if you really believe that, 2 questions: 1. How can you know that? 2. How can you be sure of it?

Very simply because that is the meaning of the word 'religion'. "Religion" never means "a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method".

---

Religion hasn't. People have. People got it wrong.

But "Religion" is, by definition, invented by man. So therefore, whether god is real or not, religions (i.e. structured, man-made dogma(s) for believing in a god(s)) have made claims in the name of god(s), which have subsequently turned out to be entirely false.

Seems like that's your own personal definition. What claims are you referring to?

So, if science managed to entirely understand and explain where morality in human beings had evolved and came from, beyond reasonable doubt (as evolution by natural selection has been) - what would be religion's comeback? That there is more "meaning and reason" behind it ???

Science wouldn't comment on the 'meaning and reason' so the magesteria remain separate. Religion wouldn't concern itself with the scientific study so the magesteria remain separate.