• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Atheists more likely to believe in superstitions

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It should be MP and I'm surprised at you weighing in.

Whether atheist or not and whether you're a detrator or not when it comes to religion no one should be able to treat it as dismissively as to regard it as mere superstition.

A universal phenomenon arising in all cultures and contexts, repeatedly revived, recurrently experienced? Whether you consider its truthfulness and efficacy to be fact or not is not the question, there is an undeniably universal human need and it has arisen to satisfy it, it has warranted a certain status and study as a consequence. Which superstition has not.

That religion arises to satisfy a need does not mean it is the only or even the best means of satisfying that need. At any rate, what you've described does in fact include superstitions that Christians usually reject. I could say the same thing about interacting with spirits and casting spells. It is known to every culture (more a less), and has not died even in this age when it seems so conspicuously out of place. It appears to satisfy a need. The study of why people believe in superstitions is quite fascinating.

Although, again, this is this unsophisticated and shallow disdainful attitude towards, what was at a time, very, very basic sociological reckoning and/or will to understanding/enquiry which is totally en vogue and invaluable to present opinion. It does not bode well for anyone or anything.

1: Some things that were basic reckonings have indeed proved to be utterly obsolete. We see this in science all the time.
2: I have to scoff at you implying I am some detractor of sociological understanding since I am rather a vessel of it.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
1: Some things that were basic reckonings have indeed proved to be utterly obsolete. We see this in science all the time.
2: I have to scoff at you implying I am some detractor of sociological understanding since I am rather a vessel of it.

It certainly didnt seem like in that post and it certainly didnt seem like making common cause with those posters who're much more unambiguously in the "couldnt care less" camp, you missed the point entirely that I was indicating the general reckoning process itself, the standard response to any mention of religion, heritage etc. IS "lol@religion", "lol nonsense" or some equivalent snark, while there are some clever low characters who're aiming to try and cut certain topics out of discussion, carrying on a quite deliberate "memetic" struggle, most of the time it reflects a school yard imbecility. It is also becoming conventional.

Its not a left or right phenomenon, neither is it a matter of particular "blind spots" but its becoming a real general thing with regard to every topic, if it isnt "modern", consumer friendly, "easy" and untrying, its not in.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
It certainly didnt seem like in that post and it certainly didnt seem like making common cause with those posters who're much more unambiguously in the "couldnt care less" camp, you missed the point entirely that I was indicating the general reckoning process itself, the standard response to any mention of religion, heritage etc. IS "lol@religion", "lol nonsense" or some equivalent snark, while there are some clever low characters who're aiming to try and cut certain topics out of discussion, carrying on a quite deliberate "memetic" struggle, most of the time it reflects a school yard imbecility. It is also becoming conventional.

Its not a left or right phenomenon, neither is it a matter of particular "blind spots" but its becoming a real general thing with regard to every topic, if it isnt "modern", consumer friendly, "easy" and untrying, its not in.

I agree that many people are too skeptical -- they just dismiss without really thinking. It doesn't follow that dismissal in general is wrong, though. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've thought through the validity of religion more than 95% of religious people.

Anyway, regardless of whether you call religion a superstition, you have to admit that certain beliefs held by Christians have no visible evidence to distinguish their potential truth from their potential falsehood. That's the point of faith, right? That you can't just see the truth of it all; you have to let go of reason to some extent. Those who are calling religion superstitious are just pointing to that aspect of it -- the aspect in which you believe something you can't see. They would just define superstition as "believing things you can't see and that don't follow from a mechanistic narrative of the universe". Given that definition, the statement "religion is superstitious" is clearly true.

I may be mistaken in assuming part of your belief is based on faith in this way -- I have read somewhere that you think your religious beliefs follow from experience. If that's the case, how would you describe the role of faith in your belief system?
 

Blank

.
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,201
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Just remember that Harry Potter is a wizard and he would be put to death...by religious people.
 
Top