Why shouldn't superstition be ridiculed?

[Lucia39]

In answer to the OP regarding the 'chattering classes' who 'sneer at Christianity' I would answer thusly.

If people living in the 21st century and who depend upon the advances made in science and technology to benefit their lives still desire to cling on to infantile beliefs that a big daddy in the sky is really running the show and one day he is going to make it all better for them, then they deserve everything they get.

Why can't these people put away such childish things and just grow up?

That's more like it. It's always phrased as though he volunteered to be executed.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It's more about death really isn't it.

Since they were god's rules he could have sacrificed a tomato instead and said that was enough. So it's hard to me to be impressed that he "sent his only begotten Son to break roman laws until they caught, tried and executed him"

It's 'why' did God do it, that's important.

I won't lecture you on the penal substitution theois...

Scienceteacher, I smiled when you said about 'he died for them' and was just about to post "may the blessings of Dawkins be upon you"

It's all very well to rehash Dawkinsite argument points, and you might get a few wild-eyed pat responses to prove your corn-dolly charicatures, but this is precisely why I find this sort of atheism so tiresome.

Even though he uses some of the same lines, at least UQD makes an attempt to interact.

And again, what is the purpose of the ridicule? Is it just an ego thing?

Do you have a link to the Teachers TV poll? I find that interesting.

Nonono, Lucia, you've got it all wrong. What happened was that part of God ended up nailed to the cross to appease the desire of a different part of God to punish humans because those humans didn't follow God's laws. And don't even think about the way that God must've known that humans weren't going to do a good job of following the laws, what with his omniscience and everything. No, I said don't think about that bit.

In essence, then, God sacrificed Himself to Himself to let us off of His chosen punishments for transgressions of His rules. Oh, and whatever you do, don't think about how that means that the Romans were, therefore, carrying out God's will...

Or you could just read Romans 9 and read how God said that He set the whole thing up for the purpose of showing both His wrath and His mercy.

Oh, but I wouldn't do that, would I, because I'm a religious person, and we never thought before the helpful atheists came along and pointed out all the hard bits.

Oh, the blessed relief it is to know that God foreordained all you wonderfully clever atheists to help us!

Kay, did you mean me or Lucia? I've not read the dawkins site though he may well have picked up some ideas from my posts in the past.

I wasn't going to spell it out about the sacrifice, but I think I should.

God makes humans so they act a certain way (eating apples without permission etc)

God makes a rule that acting that way earns humans a punishment.

God makes another rule that the only way to avoid the punishment is if someone really important (his son) dies painfully.

God sets it up so the authorities kill jesus and then says "be grateful!"

The idea of forgiving a race for their shortcomings by killing one person is hardly reasonable. They still have those shortcomings, but now it's ok because someone died?

People die all the time. God is content for millions to die and often slaughters them himself (the flood) or by proxy (the Israelites) yet HIS son means so much that even though it was only a brief death... well you get the idea.

Kay, have you seen Madeleine Bunting's article on the New Atheists? Worth a read, particularly for the argument, not often made, that religion is far more than a set of propositions, so the argument from scientific proof is tilting at windmills.

In any case, as AN Wilson pointed out, there are only so many times you can argue that god is a load of rubbish. If that was all there was to it, no-one would believe.

Snorbs, I like your version

I don't know why it upsets you so much, Lucia or why you use the word 'superstition'. I don't think that you can come to your conclusion, unless you have made a great study of the subject.

onagar, actually I meant Lucia.

Haven't read the whole thread as I'm finding the religion/spirituality section too stressful in my late stage of pregnancy One thing has struck me immediately though - IS LUCIA39 UNQUIETDAD UNDER ANOTHER NAME????? If not then you two are definitely spiritual (or should I say non-spiritual?) twins!

Kay, ok, though you can throw things at me too. I don't mind

Is superstition an insult to religious people? Isn't taking the word as an insult an insult itself to those who are superstitious?

Also, just have to add that I think anyone with a brain understands the difference between superstition and faith - they are complete opposites!
My faith tells me that it is wrong to be superstitious...
Anyway, am not posting more as I'm already getting stressed

I don't know what I believe, if anything, but I do know that I wouldn't slag those who DO have faith, that's all, whatever their faith- be it muslim, christian, pagan etc

It has been very interesting though to read peoples views on this. I wasn't taking the piss by asking questions by the way, just interested

Frogs, I wish your last line were true.

I took a look at that article myself. Always interested in new ways to look at it. I came away with the impression that she sees religion as just 'doing religious things' so it doesn't matter about god really.

No harm in that, though there are probably some martyrs spinning in their graves at that idea.

Kay, I've just read Romans 9 but I'll admit I do struggle a bit with the language so I fear I must've got it wrong somewhere. As best I could work out it seems to say that God makes some people as vessels of His wrath from the get-go, so he can then show His mercy by intervening. But that (to my simplistic mind) seems to run counter to the notions of both free-will and that God loves us all. Maybe I was misunderstanding it.

Plus, I thought it was supposed to be Satan who motivated people to do bad things, not God? Or is this one of the questions I'm not supposed to ask, like a pot isn't supposed to question the potter?

Faith = a belief that there is 'a great scheme of things' incorporating right and wrong.
Superstition = 'Random' events are controlled by our own actions.

Having faith means I believe that God's will should be done and I want to be guided by Him. Being superstitious means I want to control everything myself!

I really should not delve into this section as I cannot help myself from posting...

mersmam- does that mean I'm a thickie? Sorry, you're probably right.

Or, perhaps I have been ignorant to faith and belief and am willing to learn about what it means?

Mersmam, don't go. I want to know what people here mean by superstition then since I may have the wrong end of the stick if you say it's the opposite to religion.

No certainly not Jemin! You say you respect other people's views, and I believe the only 'thickie's' are those who are completely closed minded and ridicule other people for what they choose to believe in

onagar, oo, no, not in the mood for chucking stuff.

TBH, in my personal understanding, I try not to be superstitious, and I don't believe in 'luck', which I understand to be bound up with superstition.

But I am totally fine with other people calling my religious belief 'superstition' because I quite agree that from an outsider's perspective, there will be similarities. But I have a considerably thicker skin than some religious people, who I often think are a little too sensitive to ideas being challenged.

I'm all for thoughtful challenges, I always have been. But if there is to be some sort of fruitful purpose to them, then 'ridicule' is only likely to be limited in effectiveness.