real life wrote:Setanta wrote:According the the American Heritage Dictionary's second definition of each of these words:
Superstition is a belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
**********************
Q
E
D
Merriamwebster.com lists belief as a synonym for faith.
The definition of belief is listed as:
Quote:Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
How very convenient for you to have jumped to a synonym of faith. All faith entails belief--not all belief implies faith. Merriam-Webster (not to be considered a better or a worse source than the American Heritage Dictionary), gives the following second definition of faith:
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionry wrote:2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust (emphasis added)
The bold-face portion of that definition above is that definition of faith which makes it identical to superstition--the belief in something for which no proof has been or can be adduced. This you well knew when you attempted to quibble with the Big Bird's remark.
On the subject of proof, you have claimed that the proofs for evolution and for a direct creation are circumstantial. You have never answered the question of what circumstantial evidence you have for a direct creation which accounts for the diversity of life forms on this planet, even though you have been repeatedly asked for it. When cornered, you begin to demand that someone explain this or that alleged
lacuna in scientific explanations--and usually for questions of cosmic origins or celestial mechanics, rather than species diversity. You have never directly confronted the question, which was hammered over to conform to the terms upon which you insisted. I submit that you avoid a direct answer because you have none. You have failed to prove a failure of scientific explanation in most examples you have alluded to, because you either did not understand the terms or circumstances, or you disingenuously characterized them. However, even were it true that you piled mountains of justified criticisms of scientific explanations for cosmic origins, anomolies in celestical mechanics, or the origins of species diversity--doing so would not entitle you to claim that you have therefore demonstrated the existence and the actions of your imaginary friend. Failing to prove a theory of evolution to your satisfaction does not make your silly superstitions correct.
What circumstantial evidence do you have that a direct creation is responsible for the diversity of species evident on this planet?
