Is superstition a wildly held unjustified belief?

[Mindmaster]

Eh? no, atheism doesn't imply any of that, necessarily. And 'proof', is the wrong word. We use evidence, which is subjective, , to inform our beliefs.

It's not entirely subjective, as it does rely on data to form your facts. We can share the data with one another, but our conclusions are invariably our own. Anyway, this is getting away from the thread, imho. The argument is whether atheists have a faith position, the answer is no and I clearly explained why.

 

[Desert Snake]

''faith'' is contextual to subject, and even to personal usage.
Theism does not have to be considered to be either based on faith, or utilizing faith; technically, atheism is more inherently 'faith based'.

/ie the lack of evidence for the atheism makes it 'faith'

 

[Kirran]

''faith'' is contextual to subject, and even to personal usage.
Theism does not have to be considered to be either based on faith, or utilizing faith; technically, atheism is more inherently 'faith based'.

/ie the lack of evidence for the atheism makes it 'faith'

This is like saying that someone who doesn't believe in the efficacy of astrology has a faith - it's just a lack of belief in something.

 

[LuisDantas]

I dunno if I accept that, I mean atheists themselves are still subject to the same machinations of the mind that anyone else has. I'm simply happy with stating that it represents that: "You find no evidence of a god or maybe anything else supernatural..", but that's not exactly the same knowing they are fairy tales or fake. To prove that, you would have to have evidence that people who wrote the holy books are lying -- something really hard to get. But, if I were to apply Occam's Razor -- it is more likely to be a myth/fairy tale/fable than real... based on history...

You are forgetting, or perhaps just failing to grasp, how tricky the very concept of deity is.

It is inherently exceptional, not really comparable to, say, electricity (to mention the first "unseen" thing that came to mind) on matters of existence.

One of the consequences of that exceptionality is that people are fully entitled to simply disregard it if they feel like doing so.

Another, closely related, is that it is abusive and injustified to expect others to "accept the reality" of one's own perception of god.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is like saying that someone who doesn't believe in the efficacy of astrology has a faith - it's just a lack of belief in something.

Actually it isn't the same. 'atheism', isn't a non-position. This means that in a contextual comparison, if you are using concepts for theism, then they have to used for atheism. Otherwise, it isn't 'atheism', and it's irrelevant to compare them.
ie 'astrology'
disbelief in astrology
no position on astrology.

notice the difference?

 

[Kirran]

Actually it isn't the same. 'atheism', isn't a non-position. This means that in a contextual comparison, if you are using concepts for theism, then they have to used for atheism. Otherwise, it isn't 'atheism', and it's irrelevant to compare them.
ie 'astrology'
disbelief in astrology
no position on astrology.

notice the difference?

Atheism is anything that is not theism. So it includes 'no position on theism' and 'disbelief in theism'.

 

[paarsurrey]

One may like to read post #18 from friend Carlita and my post #23 that are also related here.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Actually it isn't the same. 'atheism', isn't a non-position. This means that in a contextual comparison, if you are using concepts for theism, then they have to used for atheism. Otherwise, it isn't 'atheism', and it's irrelevant to compare them.
ie 'astrology'
disbelief in astrology
no position on astrology.

notice the difference?

For the purposes of discussion, if one subscribes to Atheism by declaring it openly, mentioning it with affirmation and defending it so often, it is a position, not a non-position.
They don't own it, as they don't have any positive reason/argument for their "no-god" position. I agree with one.
Regards

 

[Willamena]

Justification means here universal not personal justification.
Doesn’t Atheism or “no-God” concept fall under the above concept? Please
If not, why not?

Regards

Superstition is a belief in unseen forces guiding and manipulating the world. It's more akin to belief in god than belief in no god.

 

[David T]

Follow me here....

Painting a broad stroke here.

Theist claim: There are triangles

Theism: Sees triangles
Atheism: Doesn't see triangles.

Your belief as a theist is a superstition because even though you see triangles, it is a widely held fact that there are no triangles. You are holding a very common unjustified beliefs that triangles exist in this image and because millions believe as you do as well as it is written, you believe it is a fact.

It is not. If it were, can you prove it without going by your perspective of the image? (Ironically that's the fun part of the image, it's from your perspective not universally held).

Atheism (broad picture here) says there are no triangles.

To answer your question, no, they are not under the same concept. We can actually dissemble the image so you can see for yourself that there are no triangles. A lot of us on RF have done so countless times. We gave you facts.

But some religious rather see the triangles (maybe they are in denial that there are not?). It is unjustified (there aren't facts that can support an actual triangle) so it is called a superstitious belief. Nothing wrong with that.

I am not saying you are wrong. There are triangles there. Just you are interpreting your perspective and belief (superstition) as a fact. Why can't you accept what you experience in life is through your experience and perspective and your justification; and, because it is not commonly held, it is defined as a superstition?

Nothing wrong with that.

Well done carlita!!! I think we can take that a bit further and split narrative from our experiences. If I say "evolution" every one sees the circles. In religion it's conflicted with narrative of the triangle that has been created over time theologically speaking. So scientific narrative owns the supposed higher ground on evolution. Everyome defaults to circles that is False false false. Im 1200 AD st Francis of Assisi made an evolutionary statement that was not "nature as machine" as most in religion and science superstitiously believe. St FrAncis called evolution "family of god". That is accurate in perfect aLignment to Darwins view life is ome deeply inter connected except his narrative is not "ungodly" as Darwins so said John Muir . Muir said evolution is obvious, Darwins interpretation is so ungodly". So somewhere missing in contemporary religion is familial imterpersomally carried into the landscape. It tends to have the identical narrative of separation from nature identical to modern science. God cosmos nature all are notes on a single string.

 

[YmirGF]

Personally, the only way you could equate atheism with a superstition is by not grasping either concept particularly well.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism believes basically that anything is knowable provided there is sufficient evidence, and would even accept there was a god if there were adequate proof.

But then it wouldn't be atheism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I suppose anyone can stretch almost any word to the point of meaninglessness if they want to badly enough. Of course, such semantical nonsense will never achieve anything of substance. Assuming, of course, that that is one's goal.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Is superstition a wildly held unjustified belief?

I believe it is but the answer is going to depend on who you ask.

 

[JustWondering]

Justification means here universal not personal justification.
Doesn’t Atheism or “no-God” concept fall under the above concept? Please
If not, why not?

Regards

Since Atheism is simply disbelief in something that has no evidence to support its existence, Atheism is a justified belief. Would you call disbelief in Leprechauns and Vampires wildly unjustified? If someone called your disbelief in Leprechauns wildly unjustified and a superstition, you'd probably write that person off as a lunatic, yes?

Superstition:

noun
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

2. a system or collection of such beliefs.

3. a custom or act based on such a belief.

4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.

5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

 

[Reggie Miller]

This is like saying that someone who doesn't believe in the efficacy of astrology has a faith - it's just a lack of belief in something.

Not quite. When you say you do not believe a god exists you make that statement entirely on faith. Astrology's effectiveness can be proven/disproven, the existence of God cannot.

 

[Kirran]

Not quite. When you say you do not believe a god exists you make that statement entirely on faith. Astrology's effectiveness can be proven/disproven, the existence of God cannot.

I see your point, but it's more about the nature of the belief.

There are people who do and do not believe in the efficacy of astrology, and those who have no particular views on it, so it matches the same profile.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I see your point, but it's more about the nature of the belief.

There are people who do and do not believe in the efficacy of astrology, and those who have no particular views on it, so it matches the same profile.

Not really. Astrology isn't global like God vs. no God is. Astrology isn't connected to existence itself like God vs. no God is.

Astrology has several different interpretations and can be shown in each case to just be a farce.

Either a God exists or He doesn't, it's a black and white argument that cannot be logically proven either way.

 

[Willamena]

Either a God exists or He doesn't...

Or a false dichotomy. Not everyone is a dualist.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Or a false dichotomy. Not everyone is a dualist.

There is no false dichotomy. What other option is there? Either God exists or He doesn't.