• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheisms and the supernatural

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
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.
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I read that atheism is always connected to the belief that there is no supernatural rather than just disbelieve 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?)

No. I'd say for the majority of atheists it is (myself included) but that's not necessary in order to be an atheist.

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

Nope. For any reason.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less

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?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Atheism is not based on what anyone believes or disbelievers. It is based on the reasoned rejection of the theistic proposition that God/gods exist in some way that affects humanity.

The reasoning leading to that rejection may include lack of evidence, or it may not. And may include any number of other justifications.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
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?)
Probably not, but one might have to do some complicated jiggery-pokery to have such beliefs - when anything of a supernatural nature might be conceived as being 'God' or anything similar.
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.
Again, probably not, as in my case it tends to involve more than just any lack of physical evidence, and relies more on a combination of factors - all tending towards there being no such God or gods.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I know the strict definition (above). Personally, does the "reason" you disbelieve in gods part of that definition-for yourself?

I don't beleve in gods because there is zero evidence for gods.

I don't believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence evidence for the supernatural

I don't believe in the pink unicorns because there is no evidence evidence for for pink unicorns

Same goes for leprechauns



If there were falsifiable evidence for leprechauns existing then i would have to consider that evidence

Same goes for evidence of a gods existence
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I don't beleve in gods because there is zero evidence for gods.

I don't believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence evidence for the supernatural

I don't believe in the pink unicorns because there is no evidence evidence for for pink unicorns

Same goes for leprechauns



If there were falsifiable evidence for leprechauns existing then i would have to consider that evidence

Same goes for evidence of a gods existence

Thanks. Your personal beliefs aside for a minute.

Do you think atheism "needs to be" connected with disbelief in the supernatural or be a part of the definition? (many have different views-do you think it's deities or supernatural in general).

Does atheism need to refer to disbelief in deities solely based on lack of evidence or do you think atheism (because people have various personal definitions) be based on something else other than evidence?

This is generalizing and talking about atheism and atheist in general rather than a person's reason not to believe whether it be lack of evidence or simply, like myself, indifference.
 

Goddess Kit

Active Member
I personally apply my skepticism to anything that could fit under the umbrella of what is considered supernatural.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Atheism is not based on what anyone believes or disbelievers. It is based on the reasoned rejection of the theistic proposition that God/gods exist in some way that affects humanity.

The reasoning leading to that rejection may include lack of evidence, or it may not. And may include any number of other justifications.

It is simpler than that.

"God" is like nessie, mermaids, wingworms,
Atlantis, hippogrifs, astrology all the other made up garbage people try to promote.

None of it takes more deep thought than it takes to roll eyes heavenward in mock resignation.

It is the goddists who need elaborate definitions, proofs, phi,osophy falsely so called,
sacred texts, chants and temples to try to bring
sense to nonsense.

Atheism is as simple as not expecting a rock to speak.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
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.
I don't call myself an atheist, though I agree that the colloquial definition fits me.
If disbelief in the supernatural isn't in the definition, one can be an atheist and believe in the supernatural. Disbelief in the supernatural would fit better to the moniker "sceptic".

My primary base of disbelief is not the lack of evidence for gods but a lack of a definition. The word "god" has no objective meaning. Of course there can't be evidence for something if you don't know what it is.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Do you think atheism "needs to be" connected with disbelief in the supernatural or be a part of the definition? (many have different views-do you think it's deities or supernatural in general).

No.
People can think whatever they want, the definition is clear


Does atheism need to refer to disbelief in deities solely based on lack of evidence or do you think atheism (because people have various personal definitions) be based on something else other than evidence?

No.
People can think whatever they want, the definition is clear
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Atheism is not based on what anyone believes or disbelievers. It is based on the reasoned rejection of the theistic proposition that God/gods exist in some way that affects humanity.

The reasoning leading to that rejection may include lack of evidence, or it may not. And may include any number of other justifications.


What is the opposite of belief?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
No.
People can think whatever they want, the definition is clear




No.
People can think whatever they want, the definition is clear

Was thinking if you had an opinion about it regardless of other people's personal views. For example, you mentioned lack of evidence and compared it to unicorns. So, it makes me wonder if it's just lack of belief or does it need to be based on lack of evidence and nothing else (second question).

Nothing about the definition itself. Unless you're saying that people are having the wrong or added definition than what it "should" be?
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
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.
Its not necessary to not believe in any supernatural as an atheist, but I think the majority disregard it, or at least hold the position that they are being irrational for doing so.

Simply because, dismissing God(s) which by default are supernatural, its rather hypocritical to then claim that their own "supernatural" believe is correct, without being sceptical about it. :)
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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.

I am not an atheist, no atheism is not 'connected' to any 'belief and disbelief' in the supernatural, though by far most atheists do reject the supernatural because of the lack of evidence.

A significant justification for atheism is that the ancient tribal religions with anthropomorphic Gods have no relevance to the universal perspective and objective evidence that supports science in the contemporary world. This greater touch with reality began with Francis Bacon and Descartes.
 
Top