For atheists, all religion is superstition

[SecularMotion]

The "Good Book" is seriously flawed. Which book am I talking about? It could be any book. No single book contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They all contain errors, and should be read skeptically. The older the book and the more it asserts about the universe, the more skeptical we should be. This includes science books.

Paul Erdos, one of the finest mathematicians of the 20th century, once claimed to be 2.5billion years old. His reasoning? When he was a child, he was told that the Earth was 2 billion years old. But many years later in 1970, scientists said the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. That was Erdos' humorous way of saying we don't have all the answers and, in light of new evidence, we must discard some beliefs learned in childhood.

Creationists would say that Erdos couldn't have lived billions of years because the Earth is only 6,000 years old--and that Methuselah lived for 969 of them. I wish such irreconcilable differences between a worldview based on faith and a worldview based on science didn't matter. Unfortunately, it does because we live in a world where the views of politicians deeply matter.

Anti-science arguments from politicians is nothing new, like this one from Rep. Paul Broun: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell." He added, "...as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that." Broun just happens to chair the panel on investigations and oversight, House Science Committee. Yes, the Science Committee!

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/05/29/for-atheists-all-religion-is-superstition/

[chervilant]

1. For a purportedly "sentient" species,

religion becomes the "go to" balm that assuages the fear-based and hate-mongering masses.

[LTX]

71. I guess it's safe to assume that "the fear-based and hate-mongering masses"

don't include you.

[chervilant]

78. Those who embrace and promote ideologies that

establish an omniscient and paternalistic "supreme being," who metes out rewards and punishments as consequences for our slavish devotion or wanton rebellion are the masses about whom I made that observation.

[chervilant]

2. Which, if you THINK about it,

is the penultimate irony, given that believers are supposed to have faith that the big guy in the sky has everything under control, and planned out to the nth degree for eternity!

[Thats my opinion]

61. If you had the slightest understanding of what is happening in progressive religious circles,

you might alter your understanding of what is really being said. But that may just get in the way of your prejudices

[chervilant]

64. O, DO tell!

In order for me to have the slightest understanding of what is happening in progressive religious circles, I have to know what is happening in progressive religious circles.

One of the churches in our little community is doing "cross-generational" sermons, but I've not heard of "progressive religious circles."

(Just FYI, you have every right to believe in a god, just as I have every right not to -- and, I think it's fair to say we all have our share of "prejudices.&quot

[Thats my opinion]

73. One form of prejudice

is to take the worst examples of another's position and assume that this really defines that position. On the other hand, rational discourse hears what the other really says and deals with it, not with some absurd outside statement that caricatures the point of view. Assuming that some branch of fundamentalism explains modern religious thought may fit that definition. But then it is an easy target.

[chervilant]

79. Well, christ on a cracker!

(...or was it toast?)

Can you explain the latter day religious beliefs to which you alluded herein above?

"Modern religious thought..." Is that like Joel Osteen? Or John Hagee? Or Kenneth Copeland? I don't know what "modern religious thought" means.

[Kolesar]

3. Those rapturist-politicians feel like they are backed into a corner because they never grew up

They never learned or tried to learn how to listen to people. They would prefer to live in their fantasies. They would rather just label us skeptics as enemies, rather than as fellow human beings. F*** that brotherhood s***.

Great commentary and great comments at the newspaper site.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

4. Why do you atheists feel it necessary to keep beating this drum?

"All believers are idiots for being believers." "Atheists are superior because they are atheists." "Religious leaders are all charlatans." "There is no essential difference between Jimmy Swaggart and Desmond Tutu." And so on.

[skepticscott]

5. Still making up quotes, I see

And dishonestly pretending that's what was said.

[intaglio]

7. Did you actually bother reading the article?

There were some people commenting who added comments similar to your last point but that is not in the bulk of the article.

Let's take your points one by one

"All believers are idiots for being believers."

No atheist I know or know of says that although it is often raised by the followers of fundamentalist sects as a canard about atheists. The nearest any will come to that is that "believers are deceived in their belief" but that is a criticism of the belief and not the believer. The same criticism can be made about many unfounded beliefs e.g. the idea that an eye witness is the gold standard of evidence in a court case or that lie detectors detect lies.

"Religious leaders are all charlatans."

Again I know of none who make that claim although there are many religious leaders who are charlatans, Joseph Smith and his amazing seeing stones in a hat springs immediately to mind, but many religious leaders are sincere although deceived in their belief.

"There is no essential difference between Jimmy Swaggart and Desmond Tutu."

This is the nearest to the truth because Swaggart and Tutu both seem to believe what they espouse but they cannot be compared to L Ron Hubbard and his ilk.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

10. All right, I exaggerated

However, as you admit, it is just an exaggeration, not a misstatement of fact. And I submit to this to you, a blog article entitled"People Who Believe In Heaven Are Idiots", which ends with "My favorite part: listen to the gasps of horror from the believers after she says that. It’s beautiful. Yes, you ninnies, you’ve been insulted…accurately!"

[skepticscott]

13. Funny that you can't seem to make a case

without exaggerating. The best cases to be made don't need it.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

33. Yes, I exaggerated

But, as intaglio admitted, it was only an exaggeration, not a basic misstatement of the facts.

In other words, I have it basically correct. Atheists do say "believers are idiots because they are believers" -- and I quoted P Z Myers as saying so.

For evidence of my statement that "Atheists are superior because they are atheists", I direct you to "Further proof atheists are superior humans"

Gosh, I'm actually correct about what some atheists say.

[LostOne4Ever]

35. No you are not

Not even close. The only thing you are doing is flame baiting.

[skepticscott]

41. Yes, you quote a lot of people

and have a proven track record of making up quotes and dishonestly attributing things to people that they didn't say, in order to bolster an argument that you can't make with actual facts.

Seems like the Christian thing to do would be to not bear false witness, and quote what people actually said (since that's actually easier than inventing things), but I guess that's more than we can expect from you.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

46. Ah, so you are calling me a liar

Seems like the Christian thing to do would be to not bear false witness, and quote what people actually said

I do, so your slander that I am a liar is itself a lie.

You notice that I gave SOURCED QUOTATIONS, quotations that you obviously have not bothered to look at, since if you had, you would not have said that I was lying. I am reporting your post.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

50. I see that atheists can falsely call believers liars.

But I cannot call them bigots, even when they are bigots. Clearly, a double standard prevails.

Oh, and juror #6, I did call skepticscott a liar. I did so because he slandered me by calling me a liar.

I shall be unsubscribing to the religion forum, where I am clearly unwelcome.

[cleanhippie]

52. "I shall be unsubscribing to the religion forum, where I am clearly unwelcome."

[aikoaiko]

47. Jury Results 0-6 Leave

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Sun Jun 9, 2013, 10:31 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yes, you quote a lot of people
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=83641

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

He falsely calls me a liar.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 9, 2013, 10:40 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: You stated "I exaggerated"...how about not exaggerating or stating an exaggeration when you presented and maybe people won't accuse you of lying..BTW, I agree with your side of this argument..just can't support your claims in this alert..
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Are you calling Scott a liar?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: You doth protest too much. For someone who claims that exaggeration is "not a misstatement of fact", you've got a lot of nerve calling for skepticscott's post to be hidden when you demonstrated skepticscott's claim in this very thread.


Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cleanhippie]

51. +1000000!

[LostOne4Ever]

34. An exaggeration

is a misstatement of fact. That's why hasty generalizations are called logical fallacies.

There are jerk atheists just as their are jerk theists. The woman in that article is a jerk, those who are threatening to rape her for it are far worse than that.

"The one thing I don’t like is the aftermath. She has been the recipient of some very nasty invective since, declaring that she’s going to hell, that she needs to be “gang reaped”…it’s bizarre and at this point totally unsurprising that the standard illiterate response to an uppity woman is to propose raping her."

These people do not represent all theists, but i would not point out an article like this one if I were trying to generalize the other side.

[Phillip McCleod]

14. because you rigidly dogmatic believers refuse to hear it.

it's not stopping. the drum beats are going to get louder and *more* incessant.. your privileged whining notwithstanding.

[Skittles]

27. LOLOL

go ahead and show us who made those quotes - when I do a search I find.....only you

[Iggo]

39. Those aren't exaggerations. Those are made up.

At best, fantasies. And at worst, lies.

[MrModerate]

45. The point is, only some atheists express such sentiments . . .

And given the sources you cited — which were primarily atheists speaking to other atheists — I think you may have barged into in-crowd discussions where the usual social filtering was not being applied.

In day-to-day life, most atheists hold their peace, and would no more throw your faith in your face than they would tell you that your children really aren't that exceptional or that yes, those pants do make your ass look big.

Of course, when the discussion is specifically whether the universe is supernatural or just natural, the gloves come off and things can get heated. And yes, atheists genuinely believe that living without belief in the supernatural is inherently better than the alternative. And that freedom from superstition has the potential to make you a better person.

[chervilant]

65. Thank you!

I especially appreciate

In day-to-day life, most atheists hold their peace, and would no more throw your faith in your face than they would tell you that your children really aren't that exceptional or that yes, those pants do make your ass look big.

I find that those who get defensive about their "faith" tend to genuinely believe that atheists are immoral, and that we're "lost souls." Copious amounts of proselytizing have been common responses when I profess that I'm an atheist (in fact, I tend to avoid using that term, since it is used to negate an entity that doesn't exist). I typically end up telling proselytizers that I respect their right to believe, and ask only for the same respect for my non-belief.

[MrModerate]

68. My all-purpose response to questions of faith is . . .

"I'm not a religious person."

I've found that very effective in shutting down lines of discussion that aren't comfortable (or profitable) for anyone, without being rude.

[chervilant]

80. Good all-purpose response.

I mostly say, "No, thank you," and save my lengthy discussions for threads like this one (which I didn't expect to get highjacked by proselytizers).

[gcomeau]

81. What an amazingly good question!!!!!!!

If only there was an answer for it to be found somewhere... like, oh, THE FREAKING OP.

"Anti-science arguments from politicians is nothing new, like this one from Rep. Paul Broun: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell." He added, "...as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that." Broun just happens to chair the panel on investigations and oversight, House Science Committee. Yes, the Science Committee! "

Maybe that's why? You think that might be it? That we continue "beating this drum" because this idiotic nonsense continues undermining rational decision making processes that impact our lives? MAYBE?

[rug]

6. Fortunately, Silverman has no ability to speak for all atheists, given the shallowness of his post.

One need not be a nonbeliever to recognize the difference between superstition, the attempt to manipulate reality by magic, and religion, the attempt to understand if there is something beyond what we see and, if so, what it is.

His comments offend thought more than they do belief.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. "the attempt to manipulate reality by magic" is a better definition of prayer than of superstition

And that's why religion is intimately tied to superstition.

If someone ever comes up with a non-superstitious religion, it will be interesting. But all major religions are full of phrases and actions that are meant to affect either reality or a deity.

[rug]

9. I see you and Silverman have something in common.

No, prayer is not an attempt to manipulate reality by magic

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

If you want specific sectarian sources let me know.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. From the Penguin English Dictionary:

Prayer:

1 a personal request, confession, or expression of praise or thanksgiving, addressed to God or a god.
2
a a personal request, confession, or expression of praise or thanksgiving, addressed to God or a god aloud or in thought.
b a set order of words used in praying.
3 the action or practice of praying to God or a god
4 (in pl) a religious service consisting chiefly of prayers.
5 an earnest request or devout wish.
6 something prayed or earnestly wished for

Notice there is a wish - 'a person request' being the first definition. Notice also how that has become the key feature of the later meanings (5 and 6), even when the supernatural isn't involved.

Supersitition:

1 excessive belief in supernatural or irrational forces in human affairs

2 a widely held belief or widely practised act that has no rational basis, esp one associated with supposedly supernatural influences and thought to bring good or bad luck

Notice this is primarily about belief, not an attempt to change reality, though it can be, in some cases, an act. But a good example of an act to bring good luck would be a prayer of "confession, or expression of praise or thanksgiving, addressed to God or a god". Do it (as the Bible tells you, for instance) and you will be looked on kindly by the deity.

Thinking that 13 is an 'unlucky number' is not "an attempt to manipulate reality by magic"; but asking a deity to heal someone is.

[rug]

12. And?

An attempt to communicate with God is just that, a reaching out. Whether someone asks for help while doing that does not alter what it is. You don't define a pig by its tail.

Where's the superstition in what is probably the most famous prayer and what is often called the very model of prayer?

Our Father in heaven,hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven"

This is an attempt to alter the reality on earth. "Give us this day our daily bread" is an attempt to get the necessities of life, through supernatural means. "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" is an attempt to avoid 'evil' by the saying of this prayer.

Seriously, have you never realised that prayer is a form of superstition, if you actually think that the deity does hear the prayer? Admittedly, if you don't think a prayer communicates with any deity, but is just a psychological exercise for the person saying it (or a way of bonding with those who hear them saying it), then it's not superstitious. But most religious people think that prayer is different from, say, a pledge of allegiance.

[rug]

16. "Your will be done" is a desire to be in rapport with God, not a plea to have God do our will.

The latter is superstition, the former is prayer. Do you seriously not see the difference?

"Give us this day our daily bread" I think is one of the sensible phrases found in Scripture. It roots us squarely in the present, focuses us on what are our needs, not our whims or desires, and relates that to God, the Creator of us and all in this world. Of course you disagree with that but, regardless, it is certainly not "an attempt to get the necessities of life, through supernatural means." It is one of the most naturalistic phrases in the Bible. Nor is the phrase about avoiding evil "an attempt to avoid 'evil' by the saying of this prayer."

As to your second paragraph, well, I'll just leave it out there. It out-Silvermans Silverman.

On second thought, I am not in the least surprised you do not or can not see the difference.

[skepticscott]

18. It's a request to a supernatural being

to provide you with one of the necessities of life, namely food.

Saying that: it is certainly not "an attempt to get the necessities of life, through supernatural means." is just blithering nonsense and irrational denial.

And nothing that refers to or invokes a supernatural being can sanely be termed "naturalistic".

[rug]

21. Speaking of blithering nonsense, I'll correct you.

A request, even if that's all it is, is not superstition. What it is though is an acknowledgement of our life and an acknowledgement of the creator of that life.

Ignoring your misunderstanding of your charming term "insane", the phrase "give us this day our daily bread" is indeed one of the most apt descriptions of human beings, with or without a reference to God. The fact that it in addition acknowledges that we have a connection with God is what makes it a prayer.

Sorry about your need to recoil from that thought.

[skepticscott]

25. Show me where I said it WAS a superstition

and I'll acknowledge that your "correction" isn't more blithering idiocy. Oh, right...you can't...oops.

Do you need reminding what I actually said? Because you completely avoided addressing it. All you did was try to restate it in words that I didn't use and didn't mean. Nice try, but a transparent dodge..as usual. Saying that a request to a supernatural being to give you something you need is "CERTAINLY NOT" an attempt to get that thing by "supernatural means" is as divorced from reality as anything else insane I've seen recently.

[rug]

26. Check the OP. That's the topic.

Pay closer attention next time.

[skepticscott]

42. I wasn't responding to the OP, now was I?

I was responding to specific claims which did not mention superstition, in your post 16.

Go back and read again, and then maybe you can come up with a response which isn't so laughably lame. If not, have fun chasing your own tail, ruggie

[rug]

43. You may be right.

The latter is superstition, the former is prayer.

Why no, you're not.

Unsurprisingly.

[Zoeisright]

49. Speaking of blithering nonsense, I'll correct you.

A request to something that does not exist (not to mention thinking you hear voices in your head) is superstition. To make things even worse, God gets a "get out of jail free card" in all of this nonsense. If the "prayer" is "granted", everyone screams "praise God!" If the "prayer" is not "granted" you all say, "well, that's God's will."

That kind of ridiculous circular thinking is absolutely illogical. Sorry about your need to recoil from that thought.

[rug]

54. I'm always game to hear more blithering nonsense.

You did not disappoint.

You declare dogmatically that god does not exist while ignoring that belief is an act of faith. If that's all you have on the subject of faith versus superstition, you're done.

If you're simply going to trot out talking points, please try to make sure they're apt to the subject at hand.

On the other hand, it is always a pleasure to encounter your pleasant personality.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. It's a desire that the whole earth be in rapport with god

It's not just about the person saying the prayer; it's a wish for reality to change. When you relate your daily needs to "relates that to God, the Creator of us and all in this world", you're bringing the supernatural into it, and making it a request, too; again, a desire to change reality vie the supernatural.

"Deliver us from evil" is not an attempt to avoid evil by the saying of the prayer? Of course it is. How much plainer can it be?

I think the problem is that you see superstition as something that only other people believe in, and that it's somehow a problem when other people believe in it.

[rug]

28. What you think is the problem is precisely that, what you think is the problem.

Perhaps your time is better spent asking me directly rather than typing what you think I think.

As to the rest of your post, I see no need to repeat what I've already said, other than to note how far your description in the first paragraph is from superstition.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. I think the Lord's Prayer fits this better than anything in Christian countries

"widely practised act that has no rational basis, esp one associated with supposedly supernatural influences"

Muslim daily prayers fit it very well too, and may be even more widely practised. Prayer is the form of superstition that hopes the conscious act will change the future, ie "the attempt to manipulate reality".

[rug]

31. You left out the rest of the definition, Penguin's definition that is.

esp one associated with supposedly supernatural influences and thought to bring good or bad luck

There is nothing in the prayer about luck.

You are also confusing rational with empiric. You can dispute the premise all you want but regardless of what your opinion is, prayer is quite rational if you accept the premise of a god.

Keep stretching it, it won't get where you want it to

[Jim__]

38. Conscious acts can change the future.

If I decide to go down the street and throw a rock through my neighbor's window, and then I do it; my conscious act - my decision - changed the future.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Yes, but you don't rely on a supernatural intermediary for the effect

Prayer does; that's why it's a form of superstition, not physical action.

[Bad Thoughts]

17. Isn't the better counter-example Buddhist prayer?

Which someone will no doubt say is really meditation.

For that matter, Jewish prayer mainly consists of blessings ("I did what you wanted, ok?&quot .

[rug]

19. There are many profound prayer across the spectrum of human tradition.

None of which are superstition.

I must be a mensch and quibble with your last example though. That's guilt not prayer.

[Bad Thoughts]

20. That's my spin

Most prayer reflects the completion of a commandment (mitzvot): bless the bread, bless the wine, bless the lighting of the candles, bless that you lent money in the way proscribed, etc.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Some Buddhist prayer may be just meditation

Some is obvious a form of superstition, such as prayer wheels and prayer flags. There's no meditation involved there.

[Bad Thoughts]

24. Some might call in meditation

At least a good number of traditional Buddhist authorities still describe what Buddhists do as inwardly directed prayer. They haven't tried to correct any misconception by calling it meditation instead of prayer.

[Zoeisright]

48. Yes, prayer is exactly that.

It's an attempt to manipulate reality by begging some sky "being" you can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch.

[rug]

55. Well that's persuasive.

Let's see, that must be talking point #27, the exclusivity of materialism.

Tell me when you get to #41.

[MrModerate]

69. Hmmm. I am a nonbeliever, and . . .

As far as I can see, what you've given us is a definition for religion vs philosophy — not superstition vs religion.

[rug]

76. What do you call a philosophy that contemplates God?

[MrModerate]

77. I'd call that "philosophy" . . .

Of course, you may have a different understanding of the word "contemplate" than I do.

For me the word means "to view or consider with continued attention" — an action that doesn't call for either belief or worship.

[goldent]

30. I have to agree with the title.

Last edited Sat Jun 8, 2013, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not sure if all atheists believe this, but it seems that if an atheist doesn't believe in god, that he will think religion is bunk.

I'm good with that -- I'm not taking advice from atheists on my religion. So, onward atheists!

[LostOne4Ever]

36. Buddhism

Is an example of a religion that does not need a god and to which many atheists belong.

[okasha]

74. Some forms of Buddhism do not need to postulate a god.

Others, such as "Pure Land" BUddhism, are both theistic and salvationist.

[LostOne4Ever]

75. True

That is why I said it "does not need a god."

I was trying to imply that it can work with or without a god, as there are many different types of Buddhism. Sorry if I was unclear.

[Iggo]

32. Well, yeah.

[dimbear]

37. Religions that teach that god is distant, cold, indifferent and unresponsive deserve

more respect than that. Sharp observers.

[ZombieHorde]

44. I don't think all religion is superstition.

Not walking under a latter is superstition, while a religion is a myths. Superstitions have very little potential to comfort or enrich a person, while a religion has lots of potential to do this. No one is going to commit atrocities for a superstition, while a few will for religion.

[stopbush]

53. Of course all religion is superstition.

And it should be regarded as so until some objective proof of religious claims is offered.

[durbin]

56. So, as I read through this thread, religious folks seem to have

a certain definition of "superstition" that exempts belief in a supreme being or exempts their belief in a creator.



The argument that a god or a creator is not a "superstitious" belief falls, I think, into what the logicians call "special pleadings" when arguments about religious beliefs are challenged on their validity. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

Their supreme being or the creator is exempt from being a "superstitious" belief because? I'm not finding an aswer to that question yet.

[rug]

57. Your impression is wrong.

This is not about so-called special pleading at all.

It seems that you too equate supernatural belief with superstition.

Prove me wrong. Describe the difference. When you're done, re-read the thread.

[durbin]

66. I was simply asking for answers. You did not answer, but you

accused me of having thoughts that you imagined I had.

Please just answer the simple question I asked. I look forward to a reason to believe, and you certainly are the most capable spokesperson for those that do believe. Tell us all, all who read your words here, tell us all

What is the difference between belief in a mythical being and belief in your concept of a god, your concept of the creator of this world/universe? I would like to know what "superstition" means to you, as compared and contrasted with your own concept of your god or creator figure.

Can you give me and others a clear and compelling answer to that question? Or would you prefer to try to psychoanalyze me?

Actually, no one, except me, cares what I think, most of us want to know what and how and whatever YOU think, since you post several pro-supernatural, pro-religious, anti-atheist threads each and every day.

But you are welcome to your opsinions, no matter how pittiful it looks when you try to defend them with elementary school second-grader logic. ("I belive because I believe because I believe&quot .

[rug]

67. In the first place, prayer specifically and religion, generally, are attempts to come into contact

with or to sense the presence of God, assuming one exists. (I'll get back to that in a minute.) That is the goal, that is the focus. It is an end in and of itself.

Superstition, on the other hand, is an attempt to invoke or summon something supernatural to achieve a particular personal goal, usually through ritual, spells, incantations or other very specific means for very specific ends.

That's the difference. It's the difference between going to a secluded place to see a sunrise and wonder or, opening an umbrella indoors to keep away the rain.

As to why to believe, I suppose that depends on what that person wants. If you want demonstrable, replicable answers to your questions, go to a lab, not a church. If you want to know if there is any discernible reason for anything to exist, other than the current hypotheses in physics, you may want to check out religions. These questions are ancient and there has been much human thought on the answers. Amid the obvious nonsense, there are profound insights.

Whatever you decide, it's not an either/or choice; you can seek both. You don't buy hammers in a bakery and you don't use pies to nail wood.

An open but critical mind is always a good thing.

[Bad Thoughts]

60. Historically, the distinction between religion and superstition has held

Superstitio and Aberglaube represented deviations from sanctioned religious practices, which usually involved an ability of the individual to interfere in the natural world through metaphysical practices. The distinction, of course, helped to regulate and conform religious beliefs in practices. That said, the distinction is being used adequately. I don't think any Begriffsgeschichte would say otherwise.

[dimbear]

58. It's worth harking back to the Romans. A few minutes with a Latin dictionary show

they had just as manifold an idea of the words superstition and religion as we do today.

The old saw that religion is what I believe and superstition is what you believe may be cute, but it's not really what the Romans claimed.

[Thats my opinion]

59. It is easy to knock down anti-scientific fundamntalists

But they are not the progressive religionists who appear here. So why not deal seriously with those of us who see science and religion as equal in the search for meaning.

[skepticscott]

62. Because anyone who sees things that way

or needs to argue that the two are "equal in the search for meaning" is not to be taken seriously.

[cleanhippie]

63. Because science and religion are NOT EQUAL!

Science is a search for knowledge, not a search for meaning. Science produces knowledge that is true for everyone. Science is self correcting.

Religion does none of that.

[WovenGems]

70. Is any religion

proved by something other than distant past magic events? I don't think so the real questions one faith has to ask is 1. is there really such a thing as magic? 2. why no magic events today?

[closeupready]

72. IMO, very little difference between voodoo and Christianity and

hocus pocus. These are beliefs based not in facts, but in indoctrination.