What are the best Atheistic Arguments?

[littlegrimlin1]

---

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

---

Amen to that!

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.

[fr0d0]

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!

Don't you think that the thunder association could've been a metaphor to help people get a grasp of something else? I don't think of this as primitive at all, I think it's quite modern. Primitive is way simpler.

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.

---

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.

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.

Trying to apply science to religious questions is farcical. It simply isn't the subject of science.

[amw79]

[quote='amw79' pid='35253' dateline='1253974470']
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).


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.

Trying to apply science to religious questions is farcical. It simply isn't the subject of science.

And your misunderstanding is plainly evident within this. Religion has explicitly tried to explain natural empircal phenomenon (evidence) by means of resorting to a "god(s) did it" conclusion. As has already been mentioned, disease (attribuued to gods retribution). Lightning (attributed to gods wrath, or Thors hammer).

Religion has over history, explicity tried to explain the origins of the universe, life, man, morality by stating it was the work of god. You may be an 'enlightened' believer, but you cannot erase the history.

So fr0do, for example, are you claiming that religion's attempted monopoly on the origin of morality, is an claim/statement of "meaning and reason" as opposed to an empirical scientific claim.

[fr0d0]

And your misunderstanding is plainly evident within this. Religion has explicitly tried to explain natural empircal phenomenon (evidence) by means of resorting to a "god(s) did it" conclusion. As has already been mentioned, disease (attributed to gods retribution). Lightning (attributed to gods wrath, or Thors hammer).

Religion has over history, explicity tried to explain the origins of the universe, life, man, morality by stating it was the work of god. You may be an 'enlightened' believer, but you cannot erase the history.

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

So fr0do, for example, are you claiming that religion's attempted monopoly on the origin of morality, is an claim/statement of "meaning and reason" as opposed to an empirical scientific claim.

Absolutely. Of course.

Religion concerns itself with meaning and reason. Science concerns itself with understanding the evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

Don't you think that the thunder association could've been a metaphor to help people get a grasp of something else?

And why would you think it's metaphorical? So you think that Thors hammer being lighting was metaphorical? Ok...but if it wasn't it's superstition. And I sincerely doubt it's all just poetry.

I don't think of this as primitive at all, I think it's quite modern. Primitive is way simpler.

See above.

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.

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?.

So any of the times when it seems like a Religion is using God or gods to explain creation or whatnot, that's always just metaphorical and/or 'spiritual' and never claims about matter of fact eh?

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

EvF

[amw79]

And your misunderstanding is plainly evident within this. Religion has explicitly tried to explain natural empircal phenomenon (evidence) by means of resorting to a "god(s) did it" conclusion. As has already been mentioned, disease (attributed to gods retribution). Lightning (attributed to gods wrath, or Thors hammer).

Religion has over history, explicity tried to explain the origins of the universe, life, man, morality by stating it was the work of god. You may be an 'enlightened' believer, but you cannot erase the history.

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.

So fr0do, for example, are you claiming that religion's attempted monopoly on the origin of morality, is an claim/statement of "meaning and reason" as opposed to an empirical scientific claim.

Absolutely. Of course.

Religion concerns itself with meaning and reason. Science concerns itself with understanding the evidence.

You're missing the point, (or deliberately avoiding it). 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 ???

[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.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

I think it most certainty does cover religion. Religion is one of the most common forms of superstition. You claim it doesn't cover it, you claim that religion guides against that, you claim that I am somewhat without such guidance - assuming that there is any guidance in the first place - you claim that because I lack this guidance, and that that makes me more likely to 'fall foul' of superstition than religion, which I am against.

Okay, you claim these things, okay. I disbelieve you. Okay, okay?

[...]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".

That is irrelevant to whether Religions themselves have claimed, or still make claims of knowledge that fall into the realms of the empirical.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I think it most certainty does cover religion. Religion is one of the most common forms of superstition. You claim it doesn't cover it, you claim that religion guides against that, you claim that I am somewhat without such guidance - assuming that there is any guidance in the first place - you claim that because I lack this guidance, and that that makes me more likely to 'fall foul' of superstition than religion, which I am against.

Okay, you claim these things, okay. I disbelieve you. Okay, okay?

And with respect, I think that you grossly misunderstand religion right there.

That is irrelevant to whether Religions themselves have claimed, or still make claims of knowledge that fall into the realms of the empirical.

I don't deny that people have mistakenly made claims of knowledge falling into the empirical realm. This is always error and always specifically conflicting with the nature of religion. The two things cannot co-exist logically.

[Edwardo Piet]

And with respect, I think that you grossly misunderstand religion right there.

I am just rejecting claims that religious 'experts' (be it theologians or whatever), in any way 'get it'.

I don't deny that people have mistakenly made claims of knowledge falling into the empirical realm. This is always error and always specifically conflicting with the nature of religion. The two things cannot co-exist logically.

And you seem to claim that no Religion ever makes any claims about the universe. The bible never ever does for instance....I don't see how you can be so absolutist about this, Religion never claims and never has done, anything over reality? You may define Religion outside of that, but saying that the earth was created in 6 days, whether metaphorical or not is a claim about the universe. And can be interpreted to be in conflict with science - Creationism for instance.

EvF