LDS

[skyrider44]

It is by definition "superstition". Admittedly a pejorative term. One could be charitable and simply call it "religion" but it is by definition superstition.

Oh? Note the following:

"I must say it is unfortunate that many (so called) 'educated people' dismiss religions as nothing more than superstitions only because some religions stress the possibility of miracles via the act of faith. Although faith per se is neither blind nor irrational, faith is often perceived as an irrational act of believing in some unexplainable supernatural forces. . . .

"To me, religion points the way to lead a wise and wholesome life. It should never be assumed to be a bundle of superstitious beliefs [emphasis added]. Religion's primary focus is to help us live wisely." (Mikio, "The difference between religion and superstition." He references Reinhold Niebuhr in a book by Richard Wightman Fox entitled The Serenity Prayer - The Essence of Religion)

It would also be helpful for you--and Slowvehicle--to read "Superstition and Religion," by the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, May 1, 2005.

 

[RandFan]

Oh? Note the following:

"I must say it is unfortunate that many (so called) 'educated people' dismiss religions as nothing more than superstitions only because some religions stress the possibility of miracles via the act of faith. Although faith per se is neither blind nor irrational, faith is often perceived as an irrational act of believing in some unexplainable supernatural forces. . . .

"To me, religion points the way to lead a wise and wholesome life. It should never be assumed to be a bundle of superstitious beliefs [emphasis added]. Religion's primary focus is to help us live wisely." (Mikio, "The difference between religion and superstition." He references Reinhold Niebuhr in a book by Richard Wightman Fox entitled The Serenity Prayer - The Essence of Religion)

It would also be helpful for you to read "Superstition and Religion," by the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, May 1, 2005.

Please forgive my presumption but I assume the good doctor has a doctorate of philosophy in the field of theology. If not then I apologize.

In any event, I don't recognize the authority of a Reverend to speak on the laws of physics or the violation of those laws. Regardless, I reject the Reverend's premises. It might not JUST be a bundle of superstitious beliefs but anything supernatural is by definition superstitious. Any natural explanation, no matter how absurd, is far more parsimonious than any supernatural belief.

Religion, explicitly the Christian religion, is a belief in things without evidence or understanding of how the deity performs his miracles. Miracles are by definition superstitious.

We have to be careful. Most every aspect of spiritual devotion can be pushed to an extremity that turns it into an act of superstition. That principle even includes attendance in worship. Going into a church building no more guarantees that a person will live a trouble-free Christian life than entering a garage makes a person a car or guarantees that a person’s car will start.​

If you believe there is a god that can hear and answer prayers and you don't know how that god does it (the power of the priesthood is not an answer) then your belief is superstitious.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Oh? Note the following:

"I must say it is unfortunate that many (so called) 'educated people' dismiss religions as nothing more than superstitions only because some religions stress the possibility of miracles via the act of faith. Although faith per se is neither blind nor irrational, faith is often perceived as an irrational act of believing in some unexplainable supernatural forces. . . .

"To me, religion points the way to lead a wise and wholesome life. It should never be assumed to be a bundle of superstitious beliefs [emphasis added]. Religion's primary focus is to help us live wisely." (Mikio, "The difference between religion and superstition." He references Reinhold Niebuhr in a book by Richard Wightman Fox entitled The Serenity Prayer - The Essence of Religion)

It would also be helpful for you--and Slowvehicle--to read "Superstition and Religion," by the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, May 1, 2005.

RandFan expressed the contracoup beautifully.

Oddly enough, I have read Dr. Gaddy's devotional apologetics.

ETF: non-functioning, out-of-date link.
If one is interested, using the title and the good Reverend's name as search terms will take one to a link to a downloadable .pdf.

Be forewarned--it is a tissue of special pleading, apologetic assumption, and "faith"-based equivocation. The good Reverend is welcome to his opinion--but from his skill-less "etymology" to his torturous "logic", the good Reverend's opinion does not change the fact that holding to a belief that manifestly contradicts observed reality is, in fact superstition.

(mercifully, it is not a very long tissue...)

(And, in honor of this day, I would like to point out that I believe it is bad luck to be superstitious...)

 

[skyrider44]

Be forewarned--it is a tissue of special pleading, apologetic assumption, and "faith"-based equivocation" [referring to Dr. Gaddy's comments, which I referenced in an earlier post].

Slowvehicle has a habit--presumably to gain argumentive leverage--of overstating/distorting an opponent's position. Above, he accuses Dr. Gaddy of "a tissue of special pleading, apologetic assumption, and 'faith'-based equivocation." (Somehow he failed to include wife beating.) SV's criticisms almost invariably lack balance. Were he interested in being fair, he might have at least taken into consideration the following by Dr. Gaddy:

"From time to time, perhaps all of us would do well to take an inventory of our spiritual practices and seek to identify among them that which is a true act of devotion and that which qualifies as lingering superstition. Even our prayers can degenerate into acts far more akin to superstition than to the communication of devotion."

 

[Olowkow]

FWIW, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy is often on the Rachel Maddow show, and is one of the more reasonable, rational, (liberal) religious types out there these days. As Rev's go, he is a pretty good guy. He doesn't have all the anti or negative, hating stuff going on in his view of the world of religious belief.

 

[joobz]

...fair, he might have at least taken into consideration the following by Dr. Gaddy:

"From time to time, perhaps all of us would do well to take an inventory of our spiritual practices and seek to identify among them that which is a true act of devotion and that which qualifies as lingering superstition. Even our prayers can degenerate into acts far more akin to superstition than to the communication of devotion."

What is your point of quoting the above?

That section above seems to be a crticism against people who do religious acts as a matter of behavior rather than truly believing in the actions on takes. In other words, simply going through the motions as opposed to actually meaning it.

In that light, it seems to have absolutely no bearing to the point that slow vehicle or randfan were making.

Please remember that context is important. Just becuase your quote used the same word as randfan and slowvehicle, it doesnt it relevant.


This is almost an exact replica of your error in your use of the word faith, when you meant hope, in regards to science.

 

[skyrider44]

What is your point of quoting the above?

Nothing complicated about it. My purpose was to show that their criticism of Dr. Gaddy was unfair. The excerpt from his paper that I posted provides clear evidence that he is reasonable and insightful in distinguishing between religion and superstition.

: That section above seems to be a crticism against people who do religious acts as a matter of behavior rather than truly believing in the actions on takes. In other words, simply going through the motions as opposed to actually meaning it.

Do you disagree with that?

: In that light, it seems to have absolutely no bearing to the point that slow vehicle or randfan were making.

The discussion is about religion contrasted with superstition. People who "do religious acts as a matter of behavior" are probably superstitious rather than true believers. Consequently, the excerpt is entirely relevant.

: Please remember that context is important. Just becuase your quote used the same word as randfan and slowvehicle, it doesnt it relevant.

(See above.)

: This is almost an exact replica of your error in your use of the word faith, when you meant hope, in regards to science.

Please see my earlier posts in which I quote scholars re. the role of faith in the scientific method. More such quotes are readily available.

 

[skyrider44]

FWIW, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy is often on the Rachel Maddow show, and is one of the more reasonable, rational, (liberal) religious types out there these days. As Rev's go, he is a pretty good guy. He doesn't have all the anti or negative, hating stuff going on in his view of the world of religious belief.

Thank you for helping to set the record straight.

 

[abaddon]

Be forewarned--it is a tissue of special pleading, apologetic assumption, and "faith"-based equivocation" [referring to Dr. Gaddy's comments, which I referenced in an earlier post].

Slowvehicle has a habit--presumably to gain argumentive leverage--of overstating/distorting an opponent's position. Above, he accuses Dr. Gaddy of "a tissue of special pleading, apologetic assumption, and 'faith'-based equivocation." (Somehow he failed to include wife beating.) SV's criticisms almost invariably lack balance. Were he interested in being fair, he might have at least taken into consideration the following by Dr. Gaddy:

"From time to time, perhaps all of us would do well to take an inventory of our spiritual practices and seek to identify among them that which is a true act of devotion and that which qualifies as lingering superstition. Even our prayers can degenerate into acts far more akin to superstition than to the communication of devotion."

Learn to quote correctly.

Don't personalise the discussion.

 

[joobz]

Nothing complicated about it. My purpose was to show that their criticism of Dr. Gaddy was unfair. The excerpt from his paper that I posted provides clear evidence that he is reasonable and insightful in distinguishing between religion and superstition.

But my point is his use of the word superstitution is different from randfan. Randfan used it to mean to hold an unsubstantiated belief. He even went to explain that anything supernatural is by definition, superstitious.

This is clearly different than Gaddys use.

Do you disagree with that?

I neither agree or disagree as it is too generic of a view to hold an opinion on.
If one speaks to helping others as described in the bible, I would agree.
If one speaks to being Antigay as described in the bible, I would disagree.

The discussion is about religion contrasted with superstition. People who "do religious acts as a matter of behavior" are probably superstitious rather than true believers. Consequently, the excerpt is entirely relevant.

The definition of superstition is
1
a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2
: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
See superstition defined for English-language learners »
See superstition defined for kids »

Based upon the above definitions, which do you think randfan is referring to and which do you believe dr.gaddy used?

Please see my earlier posts in which I quote scholars re. the role of faith in the scientific method. More such quotes are readily available.

I've seen those posts. It is why I made my comment. Your scholars make the same mistake you are making.

Words have mutiple meanings. It doesn't help you to equivocate between them.
If I come into your house. I am NOT trying to inseminate it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Let the record reflect: (Revered Dr. C. W. Gaddy's words in blue, taken from the sermon, "Superstition and Religion", dated Mat 1, 2005.

"What the apostle Paul discovered about religion in ancient Athens was very much akin to what today we can discover about religion in our local communities—except, it was different!

clear example of special pleading.

Let me explain.
Paul traveled to ancient Athens with no small degree of reticence.

Unwarranted, unattested, untested assumption--as if The Acts of the Apostles could serve as self-validating evidence for the veracity of the claims made in The Acts of the Apostles. This is a common, nearly universal, bit of special pleading indulged in by xianists of all stripes (and with their stripes our minds are reeled).

Though academically well trained and blessed with a mind as nimble as it was sharp,

Again, special pleading. A demagogue who is said to have preached the "message" of a "man" he never met--a version of the "message" at odds with what is said to be the report of others, said to have been witnesses to the "man" while he was alive.
If your imaginary friend is Abraham Lincoln, or Catherine the Great, or Dumbo, you get funny looks; if your imaginary friend is the "resurrected" Jesus who was said to have been said the be "the christ", you get a pass...

Paul recognized Athens as the international center of philosophical thought.

Again, unwarranted, untested acceptance of interpolation of what is said to be the contents of The Acts of the Apostles. With a side of special pleading.

(skipping a bit)

Religion where we live is almost singularly focused; people worship one God, not many gods

Never mind that this is inaccurate, and prejudiced; it is just the set-up for

Superstition is considered a way for people to get by in this world in order to survive; it is a means of successfully warding off the onslaughts of life’s difficulties.

and

On the other hand, Christianity begins with the concept of a good God who creates people in the divine image and sets us in the midst of a world that God has declared “good.”

In other words, according to the good Reverend, since believing in 'god' really does help one get through life's difficulties, believing in one particular 'god' is not superstition (but off course, believing in all the other 'gods' is superstition).

I appreciated this bit--after mis-defining "superstition" as "fear", the good Revered says;

Though God is to be reverenced, God need not be feared. God loves us and desires our well-being. We have no need to conjure up ways of fending off trouble...

...completely glossing over the "Hi, I'm Jesus! You have to let me in to you heart so that I can protect you from what I'll do to you if you don't let me in to your heart" bit.

I could go on, but the rest is pretty much of a much.

Special pleading, check.

Circular logic, check.

Assuming the consequent, check.

And, oh, yes--I did not, in fact, accuse anyone of spousal abuse (a fairly tasteless exaggeration); although, had the good Revered taken as his text Eph. 5:22-23, it might have been a fair cop...

sk44: RandFan has mentioned this to you before, and now I will.

If you have a comment about me, you ought to have the maturity to deliver it to me, directly (as I have done for you), rather than lifting your plaint to the heavens and delivering it to the forum, about me. YMMV

 

[abaddon]

<snip for brevity>

It seems to me, ponderous transportation, that some intentionally bork quotes to make some kind of point.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It seems to me, ponderous transportation, that some intentionally bork quotes to make some kind of point.

I know, right?

 

[abaddon]

I know, right?

Right.

 

[Pixel42]

I see we've moved on from discussing the definition of the word dogma to discussing the definition of the word superstition, thereby once again diverting discussion away from the fraudulent nature of the LDS scriptures.

 

[Janadele]

You asked a question that, unfortunately, was irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yeah, that was absolutely hilarious.

 

[pakeha]

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the BoA should be considered anything but a crass hoax.

...I'll also rephrase my own question.
What justification is there to perpetrate the cold-blooded fraud that's the BoA?

...So, skywalker44, why are you avoiding discussing Smith's fraud in the case of the BoA?

 

[AdMan]

So you have less than nothing to contribute to the discussion at this point. Thanks so much.

 

[joobz]

I see we've moved on from discussing the definition of the word dogma to discussing the definition of the word superstition, thereby once again diverting discussion away from the fraudulent nature of the LDS scriptures.

More broadly, we are pointing out that skywriter is using equivocation in his arguments. He has been using this to deflect rational arguments. It is important for him to recognize his use of this.