Is superstition a wildly held unjustified belief?

[Shad]

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

Irreverent. Most theists rather than admit to faith have to create arguments, wave scripture around, etc in order to justify their theism. It is this point that atheists contest. Or are you obvious to well most of history?

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''.

If you attempt to justify your position you have a burden of proof to meet. Again most theists never admit to faith as it can be dismissed for being faith.

Atheism is a belief in the supernatural.

No it isn't. You confuse that with theism. Deities are supernatural. Your opening comment refuted your later statement.

In fact, it's the 'most' supernatural concept, since it doesn't even have a basis by which it can at least present an argument that doesn't involve not presenting an argument.

No as superstition is the belief in the supernatural not a lack of belief in it nor rejection of it.

Good to see you have no idea what words mean like superstition. Since you still have no idea what this word means your argument collapse as it is a primary premise for your conclusion.. Buy a dictionary son. Maybe read a few books on philosophy which discuss weak and strong positions of both theism and atheism.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Please elaborate one's point.
Regards

Spirit is not carnal and therefore does not obey the laws of physics.

 

[paarsurrey]

Spirit is not carnal and therefore does not obey the laws of physics.

I agree that spirit is not physical.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I agree that spirit is not physical.
Regards

Yet, one believes that spirit exists. Is it superstition to believe in a spirit?
Anybody, please
Regards

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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...

Pretty much aligns with my version of 'atheism'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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...

Says you. Which is fine. But I don't KNOW there is no God. I'm not even sure what God is. But I'm an atheist because it would be dishonest to claim agnosticism. I don't think there is a God. And even moreso, I find it impossible to believe a God would be as defined by any of the dogmatic religions.

 

[Mindmaster]

Pretty much aligns with my version of 'atheism'.

I consider myself an accidental atheist, in that I believe mostly along the same lines but non-militantly. It doesn't bother me to engage in some strange occult practice, but I realize since the subject/viewer filter is basically unable to be divided it is impossible to know whether you are working "magic" or working "yourself". I'm not seeking those experiences out of a need to believe in them, but rather I am just interested in peak experiences and the forbidden/taboo/occult are just an extension of that. Functionally, it is irrelevant, but I think anyone can go exploring along those lines as long as they can keep their perspective.

 

[Mindmaster]

Says you. Which is fine. But I don't KNOW there is no God. I'm not even sure what God is. But I'm an atheist because it would be dishonest to claim agnosticism. I don't think there is a God. And even moreso, I find it impossible to believe a God would be as defined by any of the dogmatic religions.

For me, I've always found that it is strange that a macrocosmic type being like a god would be directly concerned with what amounts to a speck of being. (proportionately) That's why I've always found holy/divine mandate difficult to believe since any of the prohibitions that are discussed such a being could simply make us incapable of doing. Thou shalt not kill? God makes us permanently "stoned", solved... See that's the type of logical quandaries I always run into. The fact that the commandments and the dictates of Torah/Bible/Quran are so trivial and menial indicates to me that they are the product of other men, not gods. Gods certainly would have no concern of whether you were clean, or unclean... or cheated on your wife, or anything else... I mean, like they wouldn't have anything better to do?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

For me, I've always found that it is strange that a macrocosmic type being like a god would be directly concerned with what amounts to a speck of being. (proportionately) That's why I've always found holy/divine mandate difficult to believe since any of the prohibitions that are discussed such a being could simply make us incapable of doing. Thou shalt not kill? God makes us permanently "stoned", solved... See that's the type of logical quandaries I always run into. The fact that the commandments and the dictates of Torah/Bible/Quran are so trivial and menial indicates to me that they are the product of other men, not gods. Gods certainly would have no concern of whether you were clean, or unclean... or cheated on your wife, or anything else... I mean, like they wouldn't have anything better to do?

It's weird how similar of mind we are on some things and how different on others!!

 

[Mindmaster]

It's weird how similar of mind we are on some things and how different on others!!

Heh, my approach on politics is actually just based on anti-authoritarian libertarianism. I believe that morality is relativistic as well, so that might make some of my criticisms seem harsh in perspective, I'd imagine. I'll tend to vehemently reject ideas other people put forward just to feel good, and support things that lead ultimately to the most profitable result for all parties. That puts me on the wrong side of the "wall", transgenders, and nearly any other identity politic talking points that are popular here. I'm live and let live though, I don't expect people to conform to my ideas...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Heh, my approach on politics is actually just based on anti-authoritarian libertarianism. I believe that morality is relativistic as well, so that might make some of my criticisms seem harsh in perspective, I'd imagine. I'll tend to vehemently reject ideas other people put forward just to feel good, and support things that lead ultimately to the most profitable result for all parties. That puts me on the wrong side of the "wall", transgenders, and nearly any other identity politic talking points that are popular here. I'm live and let live though, I don't expect people to conform to my ideas...

Makes sense, in terms of our differences.
I would agree on the relative morality thing, but would also draw my personal moral line in a different place to yours...which is kinda as you'd expect I guess. For instance, I'm not sniping people from the walls for economic expediency...

Also, I'm much less individualistic, and more societal than you I would imagine. I'm not a leftie, per se, but in a relative sense I'm definitely to the left of American libertarians. Probably way left even.

 

[Vinayaka]

A non-position isn't a faith, it's an, "I don't know, but I am pretty certain you don't either."

As far as I know, this describes agnosticism, not atheism. Sometimes the terms 'soft atheist' and hard atheist' are used too. 'Soft' refers to he position you described, whereas a 'hard' atheist absolutely without question 'knows' there is no God period, just as certain theists are absolutely convinced.

 

[Mindmaster]

As far as I know, this describes agnosticism, not atheism. Sometimes the terms 'soft atheist' and hard atheist' are used too. 'Soft' refers to he position you described, whereas a 'hard' atheist absolutely without question 'knows' there is no God period, just as certain theists are absolutely convinced.

No, agnosticism means you believe such things are unknowable/unknown. An atheist believes that the evidence doesn't bear out the conclusion that there might be a god. They certainly have no qualms about whether or not we could ascertain the fact that a god exists if there was suitable and plainly visible data to support the conclusion.

Agnosticism basically takes three tacks -

1) God is unknowable, by virtue of not being able to differentiate subject/object and viewer.

2) God is unknowable, but maybe in the future something can be found out. (soft)

3) If God exists he certainly made himself scarce and has little to do with humans. (apathetic) No amount of debate can disprove or prove God's existence.

Atheism is really clear: If there is evidence it is knowable, and it proves or disproves. That's the primary difference, one believes you can have the answer and agnosticism basically thinks you cannot get it. On this point the atheist and the theist agree -- You can have the answer! That's where the agnostic diverges. Now admittedly, this is somewhat on a sliding scale, but these are the basic differences.

 

[Mindmaster]

Makes sense, in terms of our differences.
I would agree on the relative morality thing, but would also draw my personal moral line in a different place to yours...which is kinda as you'd expect I guess. For instance, I'm not sniping people from the walls for economic expediency...

Also, I'm much less individualistic, and more societal than you I would imagine. I'm not a leftie, per se, but in a relative sense I'm definitely to the left of American libertarians. Probably way left even.

Yeah, well see the "sniping" thing is a head job. If you know there are snipers you don't cross anyway... As much as it seems like that would be drastic who'd really get froggy? See, that's the point -- it's just a deterrent that is going to rarely used. Most other countries would defend their borders in this manner though, with guns... We're a rarity...

 

[paarsurrey]

No, agnosticism means you believe such things are unknowable/unknown. An atheist believes that the evidence doesn't bear out the conclusion that there might be a god. They certainly have no qualms about whether or not we could ascertain the fact that a god exists if there was suitable and plainly visible data to support the conclusion.

Agnosticism basically takes three tacks -

1) God is unknowable, by virtue of not being able to differentiate subject/object and viewer.

2) God is unknowable, but maybe in the future something can be found out. (soft)

3) If God exists he certainly made himself scarce and has little to do with humans. (apathetic) No amount of debate can disprove or prove God's existence.

Atheism is really clear: If there is evidence it is knowable, and it proves or disproves. That's the primary difference, one believes you can have the answer and agnosticism basically thinks you cannot get it. On this point the atheist and the theist agree -- You can have the answer! That's where the agnostic diverges. Now admittedly, this is somewhat on a sliding scale, but these are the basic differences.

They are wrong however.
Regards

 

[Mindmaster]

They are wrong however.
Regards

How do you know?

Maybe everyone you've listened to is lying...

 

[paarsurrey]

As far as I know, this describes agnosticism, not atheism. Sometimes the terms 'soft atheist' and hard atheist' are used too. 'Soft' refers to he position you described, whereas a 'hard' atheist absolutely without question 'knows' there is no God period, just as certain theists are absolutely convinced.

I agree with you.
Regards