Is superstition a wildly held unjustified belief?

[Milton Platt]

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

A superstition

That isn't ''atheism''. atheism means taking the position that there isn't a deity, because it is inherently oppositional to the theism. 'I don't know', is commonly referred to as agnosticism and isn't ''atheism'', because it literally is not taking the position of no-deity; /it is taking no position/

ie. ''I don't know'', is no more ''atheism'', than ''theism''. There are various reasons for this, however the most obvious is that ''theism'' doesn't have an inherent ''burden of proof''...if it did, so would atheism...

Theism claims there is a god. Atheism simply rejects that positive assertion because evidence is lacking. An atheist does not have to provide evidence that he does not believe you.

 

[Desert Snake]

An atheist does not have to provide evidence that he does not believe you.

A theist does not have to provide evidence that he does not believe you.

 

[Reggie Miller]

A superstition

Theism claims there is a god. Atheism simply rejects that positive assertion because evidence is lacking. An atheist does not have to provide evidence that he does not believe you.

Actually the evidence is there, the atheist just rejects it.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

I don't agree with it.It is unreasonableness, unjustified and whimsical belief/no-belief faith/no-faith whether done be a believer or non-believer.
If it is one sided, it becomes inequitable.
Regards

 

[Willamena]

I don't agree with it.It is unreasonableness, unjustified and whimsical belief/no-belief faith/no-faith whether done be a believer or non-believer.
If it is one sided, it becomes inequitable.
Regards

I don't know why it should be equitable.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I don't know why it should be equitable.

That sounds like a paganist druid belief in the balance of good and evil in nature. Spiritual things do not adhere to the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't agree with it.It is unreasonableness, unjustified and whimsical belief/no-belief faith/no-faith whether done be a believer or non-believer.
If it is one sided, it becomes inequitable.
Regards

Atheism would actually be ''more'' of a superstitious faith, yes; because of it's nature, ie non-evidenced claim, so forth.

 

[Willamena]

Theism/atheism is about beliefs concerning deities.
Gnostic/agnostic is about knowing about deities.

Well, agnostic is. Gnostic is about something other that has nothing to do with a philosophical position on truth value.

Since they are about different aspects of deities, it is quite possible, and in all honesty quite probable, that there will be overlaps.
Problems arise when people pick one definition and try applying it to everything regardless of reality.

Atheism is not just the disbelief in deities.
It is also the lack of belief in deities.
For some reason theists have a problem understand and or accepting that fact.

There are no overlaps between believing and knowing--believing is entirely subsumed by knowing, yet loses nothing of its meaning.

If one accepts "gnostic" to be about "knowing god," * then one automatically creates a theist, because the theist believes in god.

It's not a given, though, that there is an antithesis to the standard agnostic.

*One shouldn't, but then one might be gullible to fallacies.

Edit: Oh, and lack of belief and disbelief may easily be synonymous.

 

[paarsurrey]

Atheism would actually be ''more'' of a superstitious faith, yes; because of it's nature, ie non-evidenced claim, so forth.

Thanks for agreeing.
Regards

 

[McBell]

There are no overlaps between believing and knowing--

Sure there is.
You can not be paying much attention to this very thread to not see the overlaps.

believing is entirely subsumed by knowing, yet loses nothing of its meaning.

No it isn't.
People believe all manner of things they do not know.

Edit: Oh, and lack of belief and disbelief may easily be synonymous.

Due to common usage, they are used as synonyms far more often than they overlap should allow.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't know why it should be equitable.

Why it should be inequitable,necessarily, please?
Regards

 

[Willamena]

Why it should be inequitable,necessarily, please?
Regards

It shouldn't be either equitable or inequitable. Which is not to say that it should be neutral, either. These are human concepts, alone.

 

[Willamena]

There are no overlaps between believing and knowing--believing is entirely subsumed by knowing, yet loses nothing of its meaning.

People believe all manner of things they do not know.

They do. Yet believing is entirely subsumed by knowing, because knowing is what is true, and people accept that not everything they believe is true, it may only have the appearance of truth.

 

[paarsurrey]

That sounds like a paganist druid belief in the balance of good and evil in nature. Spiritual things do not adhere to the second law of thermodynamics.

Please elaborate one's point.
Regards

 

[Shad]

Atheism would actually be ''more'' of a superstitious faith, yes; because of it's nature, ie non-evidenced claim, so forth.

Good to see you have no idea what atheism nor superstitious actually means.

 

[Desert Snake]

Belief in deity=theist
Anything else=atheist

^definition provided per thread

Good to see you have no idea what atheism nor superstitious actually means.

Why don't you explain how my comment is wrong?

 

[Shad]

Why don't you explain how my comment is wrong?

Atheism is a view regarding the God claim (supernatural) and has nothing to do with any other supernatural position nor entity.

 

[Desert Snake]

Atheism is a view regarding the God claim (supernatural) and has nothing to do with any other supernatural position nor entity.

The problem with your argument, is that ''atheism'', is not assumed to be some truth, from which theism is derived. This means that when an atheist claims that the theism claim is false, it is literally a claim.

hence, atheism is utlilizing , speculative, 'superstitious', notion that deity doesn't exist/ or can't exist, per claim of theism.

 

[Shad]

The problem with your argument, is that ''atheism'', is not assumed to be some truth, from which theism is derived.

I presented no argument. I am pointing of that it is a rejection of one.

This means that when an atheist claims that the theism claim is false, it is literally a claim.

No the claim is that theist have yet to meet their burden of proof. The argument is unsound. The conclusion could be true but the argument does not provide the grounding for a true conclusion.

hence, atheism is utlilizing , speculative, 'superstitious', notion that deity doesn't exist/ or can't exist, per claim of theism.

Nope since a superstition is a belief in the supernatural, your view. You confuse gnostic atheism with all atheism. You ignore that atheism is not a belief in the supernatural like theism is.

 

[Desert Snake]

I presented no argument. I am pointing of that it is a rejection of one.

Theism is actually the belief in a deity or deities. It isn't an argument unless presented contextually, as such.

No the claim is that theist have yet to meet their burden of proof. The argument is unsound. The conclusion could be true but the argument does not provide the grounding for a true conclusion.

There is no 'burden of proof'. In a contextual argument, if you were even using a ''burden of proof'', /uncommon/, atheism would have to provide the same ''proof''.