[Grustaf]

Yes, superstitions relate to supernatural things. Religion does too, in a way. That doesn’t mean it’s the same thing. Language is a lot more complex than that.

And sure, you might derogatorily refer to someone’s religion as a superstition, just like I might call someone a “pagan” even if he’s strictly speaking just a heretic.

But in reality these are all precise terms with different meanings.

To be a bit more precise, superstitions deal with more or less automatic things like receiving luck by touching some rock. If you swear to God, that is not some automatic process that will bring you luck, its a divine being with a will that presumably would be angry if you break your oath. Do you see the difference?

[gobrewers14]

I touch (swear an oath and break it to) a rock (a god) and I receive luck (anger).

Both are superstitions. The rock example is actually less superstitious because rocks actually exist. There is zero evidence gods exist.

[Grustaf]

I didn’t make this up. It might seem like the same concept to you, but I assure you that any serious scholar, atheist or not, knows the difference.

It really has nothing to do with what you personally believe or not.

In your example the difference is that the rock effect is automatic, like gravity, but the god is a sentient being that has a will.

Why is it so hard to accept that people call these different things? You can still despise people who believe in both.

[gobrewers14]

> In your example the difference is that the rock effect is automatic, like gravity, but the god is a sentient being that has a will.

There is no difference. This is the fallacy of special pleading. You're saying that the example with god is different because you defined god to be different from the thing you don't want it to be the same as. You are presupposing gods existence. There is no evidence such an entity exists and is therefore superstition.

[Grustaf]

For a positivist, you’re not very strong on logic.

I didn’t say anything about the god having to exist, that is not part of it. The point is that the person believes he is talking to a being, rather than relying on a law of (super)nature.

The rock has no will, it is not the rock that decides you grant you luck, it’s an inevitable consequence of your action.

The god, real or not, is a being with a will, he presumably hears you and may decide to help or harm you.

Similarly, praying is different from casting spells. Not because they have different effects but how they are thought to work. It doesn’t matter if you or I believe praying works, the point is that prayer is talking to a sentient god. Magic spells is not. Both may be delusional, but surely you must be able to tell them apart? You learn this stuff in middle school.

[gobrewers14]

> For a positivist, you’re not very strong on logic.

When the ad hominems start I know I'm on the right track

> The rock has no will / The god, real or not, is a being with a will.

How do you know god is a being with a will? This is the fallacy of special pleading. You are defining god and giving it characteristics that precisely allows you to say it is different than something with no will.

> It doesn’t matter if you or I believe praying works, the point is that prayer is talking to a sentient god. Magic spells is not.

And both are superstition.

> You learn this stuff in middle school.

I went to a school that taught math & science.

[Grustaf]

Surely you understand that one can know what a “god” is, without taking a position on whether it exists or not? I don’t believe in Thor but I know he has a hammer.

And btw I also studied math, in a special mathematics high school, and then theoretical physics at university. But that doesn’t mean I didn’t also learn rudimentary concepts from anthropology and religious studies.