Superstition vs Faith

[Thief]

that is beside the point...the point you are avoiding...for some reason.
what is the difference between your faith in god and superstition?

superstitions are real you know

That was shallow word play.
Trolling again?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yeah well..your rebuttal aimed at someone else didn't work on me.
I have no dogma or ritual. No recital or creed.

Did you read the word definitions?
How is your belief in god based on reason or knowledge?
Because if it isn't then superstition would be an accurate description of it.

Reason for believing in God is not superstition.
But that belongs in so many other topic threads, of which I have participated.

I'm not asking you to justify your belief in god.
I'm asking you to clearly state why your belief does not fit the description of superstition.

The difference between religion and superstition is a fine line.
Most of which is indiscernible.

That might be why I keep missing it... :sarcastic

Except of course, religion is aimed at a much Higher Intelligence.
Superstition appears to be the practitioner, attempting to control his surroundings by his own gesture.

Which is exactly what people do when they pray, adhere to a faith to gain favour with their god, get baptised, or any other action involving their religion.

Not much difference.
Not my practice.
I dropped such things a long time ago.

That's nice.
Still not sure I see why your faith in a god is not superstition though...

 

[jarofthoughts]

That was shallow word play.
Trolling again?

Actually, he was showing why your claim that god is real is no different that saying faeries are real.
The claims are exactly on the exact same evidential basis, which is none.

 

[waitasec]

That was shallow word play.
Trolling again?

why must you resort to name calling?
you are not answering the question
what is the difference between your faith in god, which is real for you
and superstition which is real too

 

[waitasec]

Did you read the word definitions?
How is your belief in god based on reason or knowledge?

seems it is based
on the knowledge of the superstition and derives reason from that..
it's quite circular when you see it from afar.

 

[waitasec]

Faith is revealed.
Myths are "invented".

not if the faith is dependent on the myth

Suggesting that a person's faith is merely a myth is nothing but a troll and the intent is always to insult.

i'm not suggesting myth, perhaps you are projecting. i am asking for someone to please explain how faith is distinguished from superstition.

How do you tell the difference between a myth and faith? You really can't. any myths were someone's faith at some point. They saw God and tried to describe the spiritual in terms of the physical. As in any translation, something was lost in the process. Does this make their attempt any less valid? Only to egocentric people who feel they have never made a mistake.

thank you. and you are blaming me for suggesting faith is merely a myth...
what up with that?

Look at how science has evolved. First there were only four elements: air, fire, earth and water. Should we demean the early scientists for getting it so completely wrong? Should we relegate the concept of elements to the garbage heap of myths? No.

science isn't based on myth so i don't get the correlation between the two.
myths are not facts they maybe used to explain the unexplainable but they do not in anyway explain HOW things work which is what science is.

myth tries to explain the WHY of the unexplainable.

Understanding evolves. It's natural and it's beautiful.

i agree. however, facts don't evolve.

 

[McBell]

science isn't based on myth so i don't get the correlation between the two.

Seems it is a sad attempt at putting myth on the same level as science.

 

[waitasec]

Seems it is a sad attempt at putting myth on the same level as science.

while "suggesting" that a person's faith is merely a myth is nothing but a troll and the intent is always to insult

 

[McBell]

while "suggesting" that a person's faith is merely a myth is nothing but a troll and the intent is always to insult

Until such time as someone can explain how their belief in god is something more than believing a myth to be true, or how their belief in god is different than superstition....

Don't get me wrong, I do understand that for some people the calling of faith a myth, regardless of how true it is, is merely to insult the one with faith.

What I find interesting is how those who are insulted merely go on and on about how insulted they are, and or about how their wee little feelings were hurt and completely ignore/skip over/etc. the fact that to those who are not in their choir, their faith is pretty much just belief in a myth.

 

[Curious George]

while there may be no technical difference I am sure that everyone knows that Myths have a connotation of falsity or exaggeration. Superstitions also have a connotation of being foolish, irrational or superfluous.

While I agree that based on definition the words are being used correctly I think there are some nuances in our language which most users should recognize as aggressive.

 

[McBell]

while there may be no technical difference I am sure that everyone knows that Myths have a connotation of falsity or exaggeration. Superstitions also have a connotation of being foolish, irrational or superfluous.

While I agree that based on definition the words are being used correctly I think there are some nuances in our language which most users should recognize as aggressive.

I say that those who are upset over the proper usage of the words should grow thicker skins.

Or perhaps they should stop going out of their way to be offended/insulted/etc.

 

[waitasec]

Until such time as someone can explain how their belief in god is something more than believing a myth to be true, or how their belief in god is different than superstition....

Don't get me wrong, I do understand that for some people the calling of faith a myth, regardless of how true it is, is merely to insult the one with faith.

What I find interesting is how those who are insulted merely go on and on about how insulted they are, and or about how their wee little feelings were hurt and completely ignore/skip over/etc. the fact that to those who are not in their choir, their faith is pretty much just belief in a myth.

i feel the insult is a reflection of ones outlook by how one perceives the comparison of myth and faith, in other words, it has no bearing on the actual question being presented. there is no reason why one would feel insulted unless they perceive myth as something that is degrading especially when myth is perceived by the one presenting the question as something intriguing or used as a vehicle in which one is to understand the unexplainable.

 

[Thief]

You've all heard this before....
Faith needs no proving.
That's not the same as to say it is unreasonable.

Now then....Spirit first...or substance first?

Several of you already know where this leads.

 

[Scuba Pete]

not if the faith is dependent on the myth

I fully disagree. Quite often people have faith and just can't put their finger on why. They might even believe in superstitions and/or myths, but their faith is predicated on touching the spiritual, no matter how fleeting or tenuous.

i'm not suggesting myth, perhaps you are projecting. i am asking for someone to please explain how faith is distinguished from superstition.

I am not sure why you are so easily upset by this. If you check Dictionary.com's thesaurus, you'll see that they are synonyms.

thank you. and you are blaming me for suggesting faith is merely a myth...
what up with that?

You asked for clarification and so I gave one from this Christian's perspective. If you were merely trolling, then I am sorry to have posted out of context.

science isn't based on myth so i don't get the correlation between the two.
myths are not facts they maybe used to explain the unexplainable but they do not in anyway explain HOW things work which is what science is.

So, how do you view science telling us that there were only four elements? Was that "made up"? Of course it was. It was wrong, but science evolved and self corrected. Why not allow religion to do the same? Why the double standard?

myth tries to explain the WHY of the unexplainable.

Myths are often based on truth. People call the flood story in the Bible a myth, but it appears that there were a few history changing floods in our distant past. When these accounts get handed down orally from generation to generation then their accuracy suffers. What may have been a fairly localized event, becomes the entire world after a while.

i agree. however, facts don't evolve.

No, they usually devolve until such time that we can't figure them out.

 

[McBell]

You've all heard this before....
Faith needs no proving.
That's not the same as to say it is unreasonable.

Now then....Spirit first...or substance first?

Several of you already know where this leads.

Golly.
I am honestly surprised it took you this long to start up that merry-go-round.

 

[waitasec]

You've all heard this before....
Faith needs no proving.

funny, neither does superstition...go figure

 

[waitasec]

I fully disagree. Quite often people have faith and just can't put their finger on why. They might even believe in superstitions and/or myths, but their faith is predicated on touching the spiritual, no matter how fleeting or tenuous.

you're not taking into consideration the element of subjective understanding.
a piece of art may mean many different things to different people depending on the lens they are looking through.

I am not sure why you are so easily upset by this.

i am not upset. this is an opinion you based on your subjective understanding. see how that works?

If you check Dictionary.com's thesaurus, you'll see that they are synonyms.

well if they are synonymous then why use the adverb "merely" as if to suggest faith is something more meaningful then superstition?

You asked for clarification and so I gave one from this Christian's perspective. If you were merely trolling, then I am sorry to have posted out of context.

i am not merely trolling...i am asking a question. a simple one at that and if you are having a difficult time qualifying faith to mean something more substantial then faith, that is your problem not mine..so dont' make it my problem... cool?

So, how do you view science telling us that there were only four elements? Was that "made up"? Of course it was. It was wrong, but science evolved and self corrected. Why not allow religion to do the same? Why the double standard?

let me ask you this...did science ever claim that there can only be 4 elements..?

Myths are often based on truth.

it is true that we don't know everything about everything...

People call the flood story in the Bible a myth, but it appears that there were a few history changing floods in our distant past. When these accounts get handed down orally from generation to generation then their accuracy suffers. What may have been a fairly localized event, becomes the entire world after a while.

it's the why there was a flood that this myth is based on that is problematic

No, they usually devolve until such time that we can't figure them out.

really?
are you going to tell me what caused earthquakes 2,000 yrs ago isn't what causes earthquakes today?

 

[Thief]

funny, neither does superstition...go figure

Now try responding to the entire post.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Now try responding to the entire post.

And derail the thread to enable your childish attempts at proselytization?

 

[McBell]

Now try responding to the entire post.

Still waiting for you to explain the difference between your faith and superstition...