the "disbelief is a belief" question again

[sophiaserpentia]

Does it take faith to disbelieve that breaking a mirror is bad luck? What about not believing that a black cat crossing your path is bad luck?

If not, how is this different from the same question applied to God?

If yes, what distinguishes a "valid" superstition like the ones listed above from "invalid" ones like the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about supersititions from other cultures, like the belief that taking a picture steals your soul?

Is the difference that people in this culture were exposed since early childhood to believe in the superstitions listed above?

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Maybe the people of this hypothetical culture have never even wondered about the existence of life as a distinct phenomenon.

I like the idea of paradigm shift to explain changes in religious belief.

Perhaps time will prove me wrong, and a new archetype will emerge, and a completely new kind of supernatural being will be conceived of. It will still be 'fundamentally supernatural' in that people will believe in it in spite of total lack of external sensory evidence. If an entirely new and unprecedented mode of supernaturalism is conceived of, then i will be proven wrong. I suppose that is within the realm of potential.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

A new archetype need never emerge in human thinking for there to exist such a consciousness that is beyond human comprehension.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

No, but there has to be some degree of comprehension or conceptua-ability (is that a word?) of something for someone to believe in it.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

Something does not have to be believed in to exist.

To believe that no such consciousness(es) exist or can exist is definitely more than a lack of belief, as you yourself point out that it might not be possible to actually believe in whatever consciousness(es) actually exist out there (or in here, or both).