You expose your ignorance of the concept of Papal infallibility. It does not mean that the Pope can say whatever he wants and it's infallible. Furthermore, the power of Papal infallibility has only been used twice in the entire 2000 year history of the Church.... another imperfect human being...the popes have changed their minds many many many times...yet they claim to be infallible. its laughable.
That is incorrect.2. unless your a deist then I would have to argue that religion, including Chirstianity, is most certainly superstition.
This doesn't follow.man says something and knocks on wood to protect himself
man says something and then quickly prays aloud to God for forgiveness
God is not a superstition per se, otherwise we'd have to classify much of philosophy - especially metaphysics - as superstition. Not to mention that much of philosophy relies on rational explainations about God.3. Its only different from superstition TO YOU, because you assume that God is real. So of course its not superstition TO YOU. Because TO YOU its real.
God is a metaphysical entity; while dragons would in theory be physical entities. Big difference.its no different than a chinese medicine man claiming dragon bones is not superstition...because TO HIM, the dragon bones ARE REAL.
Then by this definition, miracles are not superstitions.4. Anything that occurs in the real world of perception, that is explained without a naturalistic explanation is inherently superstition or psudo-science.
You are aware that the Bible clearly states that God works with nature in order to bring about the occurance of miracles? Thus, miracles are not contrary to the laws of nature. An analogy would be you catching an apple as it falls from a tree. The fact you catched the apple does not invalidate the laws of gravity. So God's special intervention at particular times does not invalidate the laws of nature, especially since he works with nature to bring them about.If God acts on the world through some mechanism other than light, gravity, electromagnetism and matter etc than its by definition not of naturalism and therefore SUPERnatural.
Miracles are by their very nature extraordinary events, and thus are not explainations of the normal course of events in nature. And of course not all extraordinary events are miracles either. Catholicism at least has a very strict criteria as to determining what is actually a miracle.
Where did I say otherwise? In fact the major argument here to begin with is that there is no unifying belief among atheists.5. You cant really claim anything on a study of atheists because atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF. There is no unifying world view apart from a lack of belief in God.
Yes I know. Where did I say otherwise?there are naturalists atheists and non naturalists atheists.
You're not making any sense here. I made the statement about the no true scotsman against the argument that only real atheists rely on reason and science. That's not true, as was shown here by the one study, and as you yourself just stated above.I would argue that your comment on the no true scottsman is invalid because if someone has rejected Magic enough to reject a belief in God, I cannot for the life of me see why they would still hold onto OTHER just as unfounded supernatural beliefs....but believe me, some actually DO.
You claim that's invalid, yet oddly you just validated my argument!