Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
You don't have to, in an experiment they asked self proclaimed atheists to cut a picture of a loved one in half and they couldn't do it even though it wouldn't actually hurt them. And they interpret meaning from meaninglessness just as much as theists, fact is humans are hardwired to detect things which are not there and to make irrational conclusions based on patterns where there are none. It isn't just about G-d, in fact some theists are more rational than some atheists.
As far a im concerned, that has to do with love, not superstition.
But how does cutting a picture of them in half mean not loving them?
Doing that would feel like killing them to a degree, as the feeling of love is attached to images of them as well. That's not superstition.
1.excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.
"he dismissed the ghost stories as mere superstition"
synonyms: unfounded belief, credulity, fallacy, delusion, illusion;
"An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome."
Like I said, it feels like it cuts them in half, but this is irrational and unfounded, yet they behave as if it were true.
I suppose my thinking that emotion is a weakness is right, then.
"cut a picture of a loved one in half"
Any failed prints of pictures of my family go straight into the shredder. I'm a bit paranoid about letting personal information, including pictures, out into the world. I know the difference between pictures and people. So can I call myself a genuine atheist?
That experiment is a bit rude, though. I wouldn't consider cutting a picture of a loved one as harming them, but it could be seen as insulting to them.
Atheism doesn't mean not superstitious. It means the lack of a belief in a god, and that's ALL it means. Atheists are people, normal people. You lack the basic understanding of the term atheism.
Exactly! I was wondering what Harry's point was all about, why he was spending so much time on a trivial matter.
No, I said that atheists are just as superstitious as religious people, you came along and confirmed exactly what I said- atheist doesn't demand that you're not superstitious, then claimed that I made a false assumption.
However, not all atheists are superstitious.
Your original point was not very clear. Your deistic link suggested that you were concerned with the reasons why atheists reject the god idea. If, in fact, you are simply asking if atheists are normal people with their own share of petty superstitions (outside of god-belief and supernatural stand ins for god-belief), then we would have to look at statistical tabulations to see if atheists have an advantage. It may be that rejecting the religious superstition helps cut down on other superstitious beliefs. Only a scientific study could answer that question.
My four grandparents , one brother , one first cousin, first wife, an uncle, 2 brothers in law ,and a sister in law who was as close to me as a blood sister are all deceased. My parents and their surviving siblings are becoming elderly. I would treasure any photo of them I could find. Even cheap xerox copies. If you call that superstitious you are one cold hearted SOB!
"We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes." -- Harry Truman
So why Harry Truman? Or is that your real name? Are you here to nuke us with your provocative, contrarian wisdom, or do you seriously believe the crapola you've been posting?
A picture is a moment in time that is captured forever. It holds sentimental value. That's much more important than any superstition and shows the flaw in your "test". You don't have to be superstitious to decline destroying property that means something to you, to suggest such things shows either a complete lack of understanding of human psychology or intent to deceive.
It was a copy of a photo, not one that they had they just printed it.
And the difference is?
Well they're not destroying the only copy or a copy that existed before,
@Harry Truman ( I hate that you completely misrepresent one of my heroes)
The little photo experiment has been used before and it isn't a true test of superstition. It's basically a parlor trick that you have tried to elevate to a scientific experiment.
I have been thinking a bit about this photo tearing experiment. I can also draw the conclusion that those that refused to tear the photos were simply not ass kissers. Why is it a positive to obey the experiment? Many experiments prove that people will obey authority figures without hesitation. Faith / trust in the experiments directors leads to robotic behavior in people much like religion does.