Difference between religious beliefs and superstitions?

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Is there any difference between religious beliefs and superstitions? If so, what?

And how do you look at christians, muslims, hindus, etc. compared to people who believe in ghosts, trolls and thootfairies?

They're all one and the same to me. Each is a belief in a different kind of imaginary being.

 

[Perfectionist]

Excuse me? But I did arrive at Christianity through reason. Have you considered that I also looked into other religions as well before I decided to go into Roman Catholicism after I discovered God.

To my question of whether is was possible to deduce Christian theology, you said

Simply put it, I just believe that Christian theology is fact. No ifs ands or butts.

You are not allowing reason into the picture.

I disagree, One can deduce Christian theology without experimentation.

Then explain how. I do not think that you could possibly deduce heaven, hell, sin and god's son coming to earth. You only seek to justify a belief that already exists.

Kindly keep your arrogance to yourself. I deduced and believe in Christian theology.

As before, explain how.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Superstitions are usually unfounded, such as "Walking under a ladder will cause bad luck".

Religions usually begin with testimonies, such as "I saw this man doing miracles that we can't explain".

 

[Perfectionist]

Superstitions are usually unfounded, such as "Walking under a ladder will cause bad luck".

Religions usually begin with testimonies, such as "I saw this man doing miracles that we can't explain".

But the superstition starts with the testimony "I walked under a ladder and something bad happened to me".

 

[Erik Mesoy]

But the superstition starts with the testimony "I walked under a ladder and something bad happened to me".

Spot the difference between:

"I walked under a ladder and nothing happened to me"

"I tried to do a miracle and failed"

Which of these is evidence against the corresponding statement? (someone can do miracles/walking under ladders causes bad things)

Leaving the thread now. This is seldom productive.

 

[Perfectionist]

Spot the difference between:

"I walked under a ladder and nothing happened to me"

"I tried to do a miracle and failed"

Which of these is evidence against the corresponding statement? (someone can do miracles/walking under ladders causes bad things)

Leaving the thread now. This is seldom productive.

Walking under a ladder causes bad luck. It makes bad things more likely; it doesn't make them a certainty. And I can say that my dad does miracles; it doesn't make it true.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

"I can say it too and exchange the names" is missing things such as five hundred others that saw it.

Re luck/certainty: I said evidence against.

 

[JollyRoger]

The only difference between superstitions and religious beliefs, is that you can make more money promoting religious beliefs than you can promoting superstitions.

 

[warpus]

You were not around when the Big Bang and Evolution happened. So the conclusion for me on the Big Bang, it was the work of God.

I'm sure somebody already opinted this out, but I can't resist.

You weren't there for 9/11, does that mean God did it?

Excuse me? But I did arrive at Christianity through reason. Have you considered that I also looked into other religions as well before I decided to go into Roman Catholicism after I discovered God.

He means that Christianity isn't an 'obvious truth' that can be deduced with logic and reason alone.

If you locked up a bunch of physicists in a room, gave them access to observational data, calculators, pencils, and some paper, they might eventually be able to deduce Newton's laws of motion, the Big Bang, or any other theory. You might have to wait a long time, but it would be possible. This is of course assuming that they didn't know about these things before they were herded into the room.

It would be impossible for a bunch of people who have never heard of Christianity to be locked in a room and to come up with the ideas of the Christian heaven, hell, Jesus, the trinity, etc, unless they had been previously exposed to these ideas alerady.

That's what is meant by: "not possible to deduce"

No , it can't . Because if that were so , then ideas and concepts would also have a corporeal existence - meaning that they could be created in the laboratory as physical things , which is obviously ridiculous .

Obviously? You mean you have proof that they can't?

 

[El_Machinae]

The only difference between superstitions and religious beliefs, is that you can make more money promoting religious beliefs than you can promoting superstitions.

I dunno, it's just a function of selling really awesome lucky rabbits feet.

Knowledge of a superstition makes one more likely to associate an activity with a result. Like I said, many religions have heavy superstitious elements.

 

[warpus]

The way I see it:

Superstition: Jesus walked on water
Religion: Jesus walked on water because he is the son of God

 

[Perfectionist]

"I can say it too and exchange the names" is missing things such as five hundred others that saw it.

But there aren't five hundred signed testimonies, are there? All you have is that account, which was written at least twenty years after the fact, by a man who was not even there.

 

[El_Machinae]

The way I see it:

Superstition: Jesus walked on water
Religion: Jesus walked on water because he is the son of God

Hmmn, no ... I think that Jesus's walking on water is History that accepts religious/supernatural accounts.

I would think that thinking that faith would allow you to walk on water is a superstition.

I'm not really arguing; I'm just fleshing out our definitions, so we don't confuse each other in the future.

 

[warpus]

Hmmn, no ... I think that Jesus's walking on water is History that accepts religious/supernatural accounts.

I would think that thinking that faith would allow you to walk on water is a superstition.

I'm not really arguing; I'm just fleshing out our definitions, so we don't confuse each other in the future.

Yeah, I think I should clarify:

Superstition: Believing that Bob walked on water for any reason other than it being a trick (ie. faith)
Religion: Believing that Bob walked on water because he is God.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

[MANDATORY SARCASM TAG]I just love how this thread generates new and useful arguments that I've never seen before.[/MANDATORY SARCASM TAG]

But there aren't five hundred signed testimonies, are there? All you have is that account, which was written at least twenty years after the fact, by a man who was not even there.

You probably can't find even five signed testimonies for anyone from that time, because signed testimonies weren't fashionable then.
And no, that account is far from "all" that I have.

 

[Truronian]

Now I agree A is religious teaching, and B is merely a fairy tale, aka superstition.

Which is why I see religion and superstition to very similar, if not the same.

 

[mdwh]

I would say a superstition is a subset of religious belief - superstitions are specifically about beliefs of the future ("such and such will cause some other thing to happen") where as religion also covers the present, past, and all sorts of other things such as morality.

Religious beliefs can be founded or unfounded. Superstitions are always blind.

This is basically true by the definition of superstition. I'm sure there must be some superstitions that have been found to have an element of truth behind them, but by definition they then stop being superstitions.

This is different to religious belief, which tends to be defined as following the teachings of a book or spirtual leader, whether or not such belief is rational or not.

 

[GenMarshall]

To my question of whether is was possible to deduce Christian theology, you said You are not allowing reason into the picture.

I am sorry to say but reason is in the picture within Christian Theology and I did allowed reason into the picture with in Christianity. The bottom line its possible to deduce Christian theology without experimentation, END OF STORY!

Then explain how. I do not think that you could possibly deduce heaven, hell, sin and god's son coming to earth. You only seek to justify a belief that already exists.
As before, explain how.

You atheists and non-believers are realy a hard wall. It is possible to deduce heaven, hell, sin and God's son coming to Earth. Get it through your arrogant atheistic head!

He means that Christianity isn't an 'obvious truth' that can be deduced with logic and reason alone.

I am sorry to say but Christianity is the obvious truth. Jesus said himself "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me." John 14:6.

That's what is meant by: "not possible to deduce"

I am sorry to say, it is possible to deduce. Now leave my faith alone.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think I agree with mdwh. Here's an excellent post showing the superstitious nature of some faiths.

Satan only has so much power as a person gives him.

He is only allowed as much as he is invited.

If you INVITE entities into your life, you will get them.

For example, if you use a ouiji board, you are inviting extra dimensional entities in your life. If you reqest special powers or go out looking for paranormal, if you perform rituals, you are requesting interference by evil (satanic) influences.

If you use ASK, you will receive.

That isn't duality.

Bad things happening to the person will then be attributed to the Devil.

 

[Perfectionist]

I am sorry to say, it is possible to deduce. Now leave my faith alone.

Then demonstrate this deduction, and I will go away. All you have done is insist that it is possible, without showing how it is possible.

You probably can't find even five signed testimonies for anyone from that time, because signed testimonies weren't fashionable then.
And no, that account is far from "all" that I have.

But you also have extensive testimony that the Oracle at Delphi could foresee the future. You do not believe that. Why do you believe in the claims about Jesus, when there is no more proof for that? The bottom line is that extraordinary claims require more proof than someone saying that lots of people saw it happen.