Quote:Confusing faith with superstition shows your lack of understanding of the difference between the two, which supports what I'm saying... that lack of understanding makes you more susceptible.

Praying to your non-existent all-powerful sky daddy is even stupider than watching out for a black cat. You might trip over the cat. 'God' is a zero.

(January 11, 2015 at 5:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 11, 2015 at 3:42 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Prayer is asking for something from a supernatural entity.
This looks very like the definition of superstition to me, just wrapped up in more pageantry.

"Help me god" is no different from "I'll be ok with this, touch wood".

Religion=Formalised superstition.

Just saying it is in no way makes a point.

Let me try...

A superstition is a belief that an action, object, or circumstance can affect a situation even if they are in no way related. For example: a black cat crossing the road in front of you, walking under ladders, or throwing salt over your shoulder. Walking on cracks.

Or praying.

Quote:Your 'luck' is supposed to be affected by these events.

Just like praying or showing devotion by attending church is supposed to affect these events.

Quote:Confusing faith with superstition shows your lack of understanding of the difference between the two, which supports what I'm saying... that lack of understanding makes you more susceptible.

Your inability to equate the two in no way invalidates my argument.

Quote:Of course calling faith superstition is pretty weak stone throwing. We're attacking the lowest common denominator.

Faith is a kind of superstition because it bears all the signs of being a superstition.

Quote:Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology, religion, omens, witchcraft, prophecies, etc., that contradicts natural science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

Do you see where it says religion is a superstition in Wikipedia there, I bolded it for you.

(January 11, 2015 at 5:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Just saying it is in no way makes a point.

Let me try...

A superstition is a belief that an action, object, or circumstance can affect a situation even if they are in no way related. For example: a black cat crossing the road in front of you, walking under ladders, or throwing salt over your shoulder. Walking on cracks.

Your 'luck' is supposed to be affected by these events.

Confusing faith with superstition shows your lack of understanding of the difference between the two, which supports what I'm saying... that lack of understanding makes you more susceptible.

Of course calling faith superstition is pretty weak stone throwing. We're attacking the lowest common denominator.

Special pleading.

At best, "Faith" is a piss-poor epistemology (heheheh).

As a basis for knowing things, faith fails to demonstrate it can describe anything, anywhere, ever.

If "faith" worked as a way of knowing things, and there was a methodology, then why don't all you theists agree on much of anything?

No processes, no data, no knowledge.

Utterly worthless.

Faith most say its a gift of god.. but i say its a gift of stupidity but what ever gets everyone's day going i suppose.

(January 12, 2015 at 7:27 pm)dyresand Wrote: Faith most say its a gift of god.. but i say its a gift of stupidity but what ever gets everyone's day going i suppose.

Stupidity is not a gift, it is a product of evolution. Now again, that is not to say believers of all religions worldwide cannot be smart. But when it comes to our species ability to gap fill and protect bad claims, that always seems to override our ability to question more than we should let it stifle our curious side that allows us to progress.

Gap filling is a product of our evolutionary pattern seeking. An antelope on the African plain does not always have time to assess if the swaying grass is merely the wind or a lion stalking it.

Unfortunately we are not born with scientific knowledge so our first experience after birth is our parental experience and all we know at that point is to display emotion to get attention, which is how we get attention and food. God belief is merely an anthropomorphic ink blot placebo we put in place to act as our super parent, it also allows us to ignore our finite existence. It is merely a comic book desire to continue.

Dawkings describes this evolutionary flaw in his book "The God Delusion" as "the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight."

Humans make up gods for a false sense of comfort. The only real thing that placebo does is provide group safety, opportunity at resources and offspring.

Quote:Now again, that is not to say believers of all religions worldwide cannot be smart.

They do seem to struggle mightily against any impulse of smartness, though.

---

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/charl...ce-attack/

Quote:Defiant Charlie Hebdo puts Islamic Prophet Mohammed on first cover since attack

I always appreciate Condell's bluntness.

(January 12, 2015 at 8:21 pm)Minimalist Wrote: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/charl...ce-attack/

Quote:Defiant Charlie Hebdo puts Islamic Prophet Mohammed on first cover since attack

Bravo -- that is the only right response.

(January 11, 2015 at 6:04 pm)abaris Wrote: Just to put things into perspective after the attacks in Paris. Here's a study how many terrorist attacks in the EU were religiously motivated.

Quote: In 2013, there were 152 terrorist attacks in the EU. Two of them were “religiously motivated.” In 2012, there were 219 terrorist attacks in EU countries, six of them were “religiously motivated.”

In 2011, not one of the 174 terrorist attacks in EU countries in 2011 were “affiliated or inspired” by terrorist organizations. 2010, 249 terrorist attacks, three of them were considered by Europol to be “Islamist.” In 2009, of 294 terrorist attacks, only one was related to Islamist militancy – though Europol added the caveat, “Islamist terrorists still aim to cause mass casualties.”

So... what were the motivations of all the other 'terrorist attacks', what qualifies as a terrorist attack, what qualifies as 'religious motivation', and can their study be backed by an independent source?

See, the reason I ask... is that while I would love to know more about the motivations of various terrorists: these stats sound absolutely outlandish, especially considering the percentage of people around the world who ostensibly subscribe to religious thought (most of them).