Is the debate religion vs atheism really about superstition vs rationalism?

Answer 1

No. It's about who has the bigger penis.

Answer 2

Superstition usually connotes some fear from actions, rationalization infers a mind totally dominated by the intellect. They need to have proof.. however the ethers of the atmosphere cannot be proven.. only, they have to be there for certain events to occur. But the rational thinker has to accept they are there. They have to believe in somethiing that can neither be seen nor proven. Any one into physics has this understanding. If you don't, suggest you do a bit more studying in the sciences.

Answer 3

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, and just for good measure, no.

Religion answers why, and how come, and what came before that. These questions, which everyone, not just toddlers ask, are eternal and can't be reduced to x=2. Atheism is saying that the entire world has to fit into x=2, because otherwise it wouldn't make sense, and things that don't make sense can't exist.

Each, amazingly enough, require a leap of faith. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Say that aloud a couple times, see if ya'll can wrap your minds around that. There is no proof that God doesn't exist, just like there isn't proof that He does.

In the end, essentially, its the difference between to-MAE-toe and to-MAH-toe. Not much. There are in spirit on the same grounds of belief. We religious folk just believe in one more God than atheists do. They believe in the No God, who, after a fashion, is still a sort of God names Science.

Answer 4

That's what atheists want us to think.

But religion isn't superstition.

It's about believing in something that makes our lives much better, and about having values that give us something better to hope for in the next life.

"Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in." ~Hub in Secondhand Lions


I♥♫→mia☼☺†

Answer 5

Dear SW... superstition and rationalism are excuses. Some people feel the presence of a god. They use the bible and such to prove their point. Some people feel there is no god, they use rationalism to prove their point. Ultimately, no one can prove anything and no one can change what is ultimately true. Choose your own path, choose what you feel to be true, and go with it.

Answer 6

No.

Religion vs. Atheism argues about spiritualuty and a higher power.

Superstition vs. Rationalism argues ignorant beliefs versus systematic thinking.

No real correlation, sorry.

Answer 7

No, of course it's not. People don't follow a religion because of superstition, it makes perfect rational sense. Maybe you don't agree with it, but it does make valid points.

Answer 8

Ummm.... no.
While you make your stand quite clear through your question, anyone who disagrees with your beliefs will disagree with you. I might as well say "Is the debate religion vs atheism really about good vs evil?" Your question proves nothing.

Answer 9

Nope, it is the debate over whether there is a God. If God exists, then believing in God is the only rational thing to do. And if He does not exist, then it is irrational to believe in God. But that does not make it superstitious at all, if you know what that word means in the first place.

Answer 10

some people will agree, saying "yes". They have no idea what they are taking about. Sorry, but if it is, then the rationalism is for christianity, look to science yourself! Science heavly leans on christianity being more and more accutate. I've seen both sides, unlike christians and athiests alike who only see their side.

That's probebly why my answer sounds obsurd, but check it out yourself, it's amazing!

Answer 11

No, it's basically about knowledge vs. ignorance. Those who insist that nothing can exist except realities subject to empirical proof necessarily remain ignorant of a great many realities.