Atheisms and the supernatural

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I read that atheism is always connected to the belief that there is no supernatural rather than just disbelief in deities (Zues, Jehovah, et cetera-not-force and cosmos et cetera). It is also said because these two are not based on objective evidence, there is no reason to believe it (thereby the basis of being an atheist comes from, supposedly).

My questions are:

Does atheism need to be connected with disbelief in all the supernatural (an addition to the definition perhaps?)

Also, does atheism need to refer to disbelief based only of lack of evidence and no other reason but just not believing deities exist?

I know the definition of atheism-the strict definition that is-though I read a common consensus on RF that it goes beyond that. Hence the questions.

Can't speak for other atheists, but for me, there is nothing that is supernatural -- only that which is natural, some of which is not yet understood.

 

[ChristineM]

Who cares? It has no bearing on the validity of any proposed truth being proclaimed.

Sheesh. I have told you before, contact the OED and tell them they are wrong

 

[shunyadragon]

What is "the supernatural?"

It's about as nebulous as a term as "gods."

The belief in things beyond the physical world that cannot be objectively demonstrated.

 

[Audie]

That's your proposition of truth regarding the nature and existence of God/gods. And presumably it's based on some kind of reasoning. In a philosophical setting such as this, when you posit a proposition of truth, you are expected to offer the reasoning by which you arrived at it, for an analysis of the logic within it, by those you proposed your truth, to. Just as when the theist proposes theism as a truth claim, to you, he is likewise expected to offer the reasoning by which he arrived at that position, for logical analysis, by you, and others.

You can claim your "disbelief" as your justification for asserting this truth claim, but what you believe or don't believe carries no weight at all, logically. And so will rightly be ignored by anyone seeking a logical reason to accept your assertion as valid.

Let's make it simpler for you so you can't complicate it.

If someone told you he has a turtle that can fly,
do even you bother with what was it, "truth propositions"?

 

[Audie]

Atheism is predominantly an identity statement. Just like other religions.

There are atheists who believe in some supernatural power. You can call it "higher power". By definition they cannot be atheists, but by identity they are.

Peace.

OMG yes another who thinks that no religion is a religion.

 

[ChristineM]

Let's make it simpler for you so you can't complicate it.

If someone told you he has a turtle that can fly,
do even you bother with what was it, "truth propositions"?

I am afraid logic doesn't work, i tried it and failed so am left with the simple and blindingly obvious, that incidentally also doesn't work

 

[Audie]

I am afraid logic doesn't work, i tried it and failed so am left with the simple and blindingly obvious, that incidentally also doesn't work

So we have noticed.
God-ism seems to do something to fog the
mind, and, combined with "philosophy",
well, its London pea soup.

 

[PureX]

Sheesh. I have told you before, contact the OED and tell them they are wrong

Why do I have to keep clarifying this for you? Why can't you understand the logic of the point I'm making? Or at least, why can't you explain to me, or to anyone, why you think it's not logical, if that's what you think?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I read that atheism is always connected to the belief that there is no supernatural rather than just disbelief in deities (Zues, Jehovah, et cetera-not-force and cosmos et cetera). It is also said because these two are not based on objective evidence, there is no reason to believe it (thereby the basis of being an atheist comes from, supposedly).

My questions are:

Does atheism need to be connected with disbelief in all the supernatural (an addition to the definition perhaps?)

Also, does atheism need to refer to disbelief based only of lack of evidence and no other reason but just not believing deities exist?

I know the definition of atheism-the strict definition that is-though I read a common consensus on RF that it goes beyond that. Hence the questions.

Not sure where you read that, but it's simply not true. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in any god or gods. It may be true that many if not most atheist have a lack of belief in any god or gods based upon a lack of verifiable evidence, but it certainly isn't a requirement. It's conceivable that you could have an atheist who doesn't believe in any god or gods based upon the fact that the magical pixies that they do believe in told them that no god or gods exist.

 

[icehorse]

I know the strict definition (above). Personally, does the "reason" you disbelieve in gods part of that definition-for yourself?

The question is less about the definition of atheism, and more about why people (their opinions) connect disbelief in gods with disbelieve in the supernatural and also their reasons tend to square of lack of evidence "with" that definition. It's not strict disbelief in gods. To many, it's more complex than that. What about you?

It's an interesting topic!

For me I would say that it's mostly based on a search for parsimonious explanations, but I'd have to admit that a little wishful thinking goes on

So the "gods" I have some knowledge of all strike me as being exceedingly incoherent and thus unlikely.

On the wishful thinking end, it's hard for me to accept that at my conception, all that happened was that an incredibly complex collection of chemical processes got launched, and that they will chug along for 80 or 90 years and then just stop. It would be nice if there was some sort of more long lasting or immutable "spark" in there somewhere that survived the end of the body functioning.

Again, I know it's wishful thinking. One theory I play with is that our bodies are like computers, and our consciousnesses gets downloaded into them and perhaps "backed up" on a recurring basis. That would make it conceivable that the particular body could die, but that the consciousness could survive. Using that idea, a body could suffer a physical trauma, say a brain injury. The "computer" is now damaged, but the software has been backed up somewhere

 

[PureX]

Let's make it simpler for you so you can't complicate it.

If someone told you he has a turtle that can fly,
do even you bother with what was it, "truth propositions"?

So, you've never bothered, then, to formulate a logical justification for your opinion. You just go around spitting it out whenever the opportunity arises, completely unquestioned, and then become rude and condescending with anyone who dares to ask for some sort of logical justification. Is that it? Because that certainly seems to be what you're implying, here.

 

[firedragon]

OMG yes another who thinks that no religion is a religion.

OMG.

 

[ecco]

Just because one is an atheist doesn't mean they won't bump into the supernatural. There are a plethora of stories out there of people that have no beliefs in God, Satan or the angels and demons who get demonically harassed by evil spirits. I would say millions of stories out there. A short perusal of the internet

Since you made the assertion, then it is upon you to make a "short perusal of the internet" and find a couple of the "plethora of stories out there of people that have no beliefs in God, Satan or the angels and demons who get demonically harassed by evil spirits".

If not, then your comment is nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

There are also pleasant stories of atheists who actually have the privilege and joy of God entering their lives

Since you made the assertion, then it is upon you to make a "short perusal of the internet" and find a couple of the "pleasant stories of atheists who actually have the privilege and joy of God entering their lives".

If not, then your comment is nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[ChristineM]

Why do I have to keep clarifying this for you? Why can't you understand the logic of the point I'm making? Or at least, why can't you explain to me, or to anyone, why you think it's not logical, if that's what you think?

The point is, the definition is accurate, so its not just me, its everyone but you. For some reason you refuse believe that.. i.e. you disbelieve it, and guess what, the definition actually exists

I am atheist, probably termed as strong atheist and i disbelieve in the existence of gods. It doesn't matter how you try to fluff that up to suite your own beliefs.

 

[PureX]

To get back to the subject: there is much about existence that we humans do not understand. Whether we are theists, or atheists, or whatever. And we may encounter phenomenon that we cannot rationally or naturally explain, and I think many atheists understand this. I suspect, however, that very, very few of them would go so far as to declare such unexplained phenomena "supernatural". I think nearly all would presume it to be a natural phenomenon that they simply cannot explain via natural processes.

 

[ecco]

Satan is in opposition to God. And in fact many satanists are outright atheists in proclamation. So it is of little wonder that atheism and satanism go hand in hand, they are both in opposition to Jehovah God.

Since your God and your Satan and Ghosts (Holy or otherwise) are all fictional entities created by desperate/gullible men, it would be a great wonder if any atheist believes in any of them.

Do try to understand, we don't believe in your God or your Satan or your other angels or your holy ghosts. Stop trying to pretend you know something you don't know.

 

[PureX]

The point is, the definition is accurate,...

No, it's not. And I have explained countless times why it's not. While all you do is keep repeating that you need not offer any justification for your refusal to acknowledge that it's not except to point to the dictionary, which means nothing, as dictionaries are not based on logic, or reasoned justifications. They are based solely on the use, and misuse of language, by people.

 

[ecco]

Atheism is predominantly an identity statement. Just like other religions.

There are atheists who believe in some supernatural power. You can call it "higher power". By definition they cannot be atheists, but by identity they are.

Peace.

Care to name some?

 

[ecco]

They are based solely on the use, and abuse of language, by people.

People who like to make up their own definitions are the ones who are trying to abuse language.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question is less about the definition of atheism, and more about why people (their opinions) connect disbelief in gods with disbelieve in the supernatural and also their reasons tend to square of lack of evidence "with" that definition. It's not strict disbelief in gods. To many, it's more complex than that. What about you?

A lot of things that people call "supernatural" - ghosts, angels, afterlives, etc. - generally come as a package deal with theistic religion. Anyone who hasn't accepted the god of the religion won't be accepting these other trappings of the religion.

Apart from theistic religion, there's often no good reason to take these sorts of claims seriously.