pan1, please drop the hijack about whether or not atheism is a religion. It’s been argued to death and is not relevant to this thread.
pan1, as suggested priorly, open a new thread so we can property burn all the straw you’re filling this one with.
Meanwhile, I suggest you start by looking-up the definition of faith as you appear not to know what it means. After you do, please tell us in the new thread: do you believe there’s an invisible purple elephant under your bed? If not, do you think this lack of belief requires faith, or is the other way around? IOW, faith is only required TO believe in one.
</hopefully end of hijack>
ETA: just saw Marley’s note. Apologies for this extra off topic post.
No. For one thing there’s a difference between holding an opinion and belonging to a religion, and for another it’s not based purely on faith. It’s based on a total lack of necessity or evidence. It’s a religion like believing there are no gnomes behind me is a religion.
The only reason to think it’s unprovable is because the people who pretend their belief has merit says it’s unprovable in an attempt to render considering the situation rationally invalid. Why believe them?
I see there’s a mod’s note above, so this is all I’ll say on the matter.
I should have said “religion and superstition stem from the fact that people like to have answers to ALL their questions”. Science and math certainly results from the pursuit of knowledge, but scientists usually acknowledge when the real answer is “I don’t know”. It is very hard for people in general to keep from making up “just so” stories off the top of their heads in explanation for some complicated phenomena. I do it myself, although I try hard to admit when I’m just winging it.
So basically, what you’re proposing is that religion and superstition is not due to wanting answers to all the questions - even science tries to do that - but it’s due to wanting the answers right now. Scientists are perfectly happy to say “we don’t know”, but unless you’re talking about pure probabilities (as in quantum physics, and maybe not even then) in science there is an expectation of at least getting closer to the “real” answer eventually - but as a wise man once said “you can just make shit up”.
Never considered the existence of god. That is setting a high bar and a ridiculous one. You would have to live in a cave with no possible Tv or radio. Then you would not have contact with anyone who might say something once.
Being raised religiously and deciding the whole thing is a house of cards, is fine for qualifications. Thoroughly rejecting all the silly teaching because they have no basis in truth qualifies.
Pretty much. Also, the complexity of our world is such that “random chance” is probably the best explanation for a lot of things, and people don’t want to hear that.
When they get that horrible zit on prom night, or when the boll weevils eat their crops, or when a wildfire burns their house down, the real answer, “shit happens” or “who knows?” isn’t going to cut it. They want to hear that God punished them for some misdeed, or that lady luck frowned on them because they broke a mirror.
The same goes for the good stuff. That hole-in-one they just shot was due to hard work and a little help from the man upstairs in return for being such a good guy. They won all that money at craps because they remembered their rabbit’s foot and fate smiled upon them. People don’t want to think that the good things that happen are just fleeting and temporary and due to nothing but the ebb and flow of a gazillion uncontrollable causes.
So I think control is another part of it. In addition to not wanting to admit ignorance, people want to think they control their own lives and that they aren’t some pinball getting knocked around in the game of life.
Marley23 declared this hijack over about an hour and a half before your post.
Take it to a new thread, if you wish, but drop it in this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Seems plausible to me.
Is that a euphemism for masturbation?
Interesting topic. As an atheist, and totally non-superstitious I would have thought that most atheists would be that way. It seems to me that most superstitions have as much validity as religions, i.e. none.
I’m trying to wrap my mind around it and I just can’t. I would think that most atheists would tell you they are atheist because of a lack of proof. Yet some of these same people will believe that crossing their fingers will affect the outcome of random events? Weird.
No, Magpies are birds of the crow family.
Superstition states that viewing multiples of these passerines invokes the following outcomes…
1 for sorrow
2 for joy
3 for a girl and
4 for a boy
5 for silver
6 for gold
7 is a secret never to be told
It is another common superstition to cancel the ‘one for sorrow’ by saluting the solitary bird.
Weird indeed… Hence the OP.
I think the lack of proof could still be applied to agnostics (or even the faithful!)
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.” - Douglas Adams
As my fellow atheists are fond of pointing out: most atheists grew up religious. In my not-so-humble opinion the religious tend to take superstition far more seriously than the non-religious. So even when those potential atheists finally cast off the shackles of their organized religion they can find superstition everywhere:
- Mysticism/karma/hippy-awareness-of-the-universe etc.
- the gamblers fallacy - especially accepted within the mathematically illiterate - and the poor.
- Bloody wiccans.
That kind of stuff. And you can do all of those without technically believing in any god. I don’t think they’re thinking things through, but what can you do? People are suggestible.
I think control might be the biggest part of it. You may or may not care why that volcano blows up, but you sure want to think that you are able to prevent it by the proper sacrifice. Look how many superstitions exist to predict the future or to ward off evil.
Totally wrong on every single count.
It’s probably obvious that from the atheist perspective, religion would fit within the definition of superstition itself.
From the religious (generally speaking since the religion umbrella is pretty big), consideration of ‘luck’, or other superstition without an interpreted divine source would be at best irrational, and often sacrilegious.
Did you have any particular reason for ignoring two separate Mod instructions to keep this fight out of this thread?
If you feel a deep need to argue it again, open a new thread.
[ /Modding ]
I did not know that was a superstition for anyone.
Although I suppose a Pythagorean might think it spiritually risky to open a can at all.
I don’t think we know how many atheists believe in superstitions. I’d think they would be more questioning regarding such things. Now, occasionally, I’ll be walking down a side walk and look down to see the crack in the pavement and remember the old verse about stepping on a crack and breaking your mother’s back. At that point I’ll consciously step on the crack just to spite the memory.
I blame it on a poor educational system,… or the fact that many post without reading the whole thread. I’ve always felt the need to read every post to prevent looking more the fool than I already do!