Atheisms and the supernatural

[ChristineM]

There are no "facts" in the dictionary. But you aren't going to understand this. So have a nice day.

There is no point

Definition of FACT

Dictionaries exist, definitions exist

End of story

 

[ecco]

You said...

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.

When I asked if you could name some, you ducked and dodged and posted a link to a Pew Research report. That report did not substantiate your assertion.

However, it did say...

(your link) 10 facts about atheists

Atheists may not believe religious teachings, but they are quite informed about religion. In Pew Research Center’s 2019 religious knowledge survey, atheists were among the best-performing groups, answering an average of about 18 out of 32 fact-based questions correctly, while U.S. adults overall got an average of roughly 14 questions right.
​

You might want to keep that research from your linked site when you disparage non-muslim's knowledge about Islam.

In any case, would you now like to present some actual substantiation for your assertion quoted above?

 

[ecco]

But I dont have any research that shows how many people who identify as "religious" actually dont believe in a higher power, but there is research to the flip side above.

Uh huh. Then why can't you show it?

 

[ecco]

Eh. Sometimes I think atheism for some is more about the christian version of god more so than the supernatural itself. It does depend on how they define the term.

Eh. Uh. No. People who don't believe the Christian God but do believe in a God are called Deists, not atheists. Many of America's founding fathers were Deists, not Christians, and not atheists.

 

[ecco]

But it also teaches that invisible spirits do exist, they were created in heaven with Jehovah God long before humankind existed. And unfortunately many of these spirits rebelled and became wicked angels.

They were created WITH Jehovah God? Who created them and Jehovah God?

 

[Polymath257]

Isn't that borderline agnostic?

No. Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge being impossible. Gnosticism (in this context) is a claim that knowledge is possible. Theism/atheism have to do with belief.

It is possible to be a gnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

An agnostic atheist would say they have no belief in a deity but that no knowledge on the matter is possible.

A gnostic atheist would say that they have no belief in a deity, and that knowledge about this *is* possible.

 

[Polymath257]

Eh. Uh. No. People who don't believe the Christian God but do believe in a God are called Deists, not atheists. Many of America's founding fathers were Deists, not Christians, and not atheists.

Not quite true. Moslems, for example, do not believe in the Christian God, but are not Deists.

Deists basically believe that some deity created the world and has left it alone since that point.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

if everyone else is using the language differently than you, then *you* are the one misusing it.

 

[Polymath257]

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 will lead you to untold stories from people who have no belief getting their world upended on a dime. There are also pleasant stories of atheists who actually have the privilege and joy of God entering their lives when they are sincere and looking for him. It's not that he isn't there. The person just has to look and want to be found by him.

Key word: stories

 

[Polymath257]

Anything that's not detectable by the senses and assumed to have contextual and/or interaction with people and things.

A pretty bad definition of the term 'supernatural', in my opinion.

For example, gamma radiation is not detectable by the senses. Neither is ultrasound. Nor are neutrinos.

Yet none of those are supernatural. They are, in fact, eminently natural.

 

[Nimos]

Eh. Sometimes I think atheism for some is more about the christian version of god more so than the supernatural itself. It does depend on how they define the term. Many believers don't compare it to unicorns as many (RFians) atheists do. So, I guess it depends?

Even atheists define atheism slightly different, so its best to ask them how exactly they define it. But in its broadest sense or at least as I define it, "It is the lack of believe in God or gods for whatever reason", and it doesn't really matter whether a person know anything about religion, or if they have spend any time looking into it or not. If they claim that they do not believe or are convince of the existence of gods then they are an atheist, even if they claim to believe in ghosts.

Also why to me, a person saying that they are agnostic doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because either you believe in god(s) or you don't. Looking at the difference:

There is a key distinction. An atheist doesn't believe in a god or divine being. ... However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it's impossible for human beings to know anything about how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.

Whether or not you are certain about it or believe it is unknowable doesn't really matter, because if it is unknowable, then you are not convinced about the existence of a gods, and in that case you are an atheist.
So at least to me, I don't think the label agnostic really adds a whole lot. Because an atheist doesn't claim to know whether or not gods exists or not, simply that they are not convinced, which is basically the same as saying that we don't know, and I doubt a lot of atheists would say that we can know for certain that gods doesn't exists or that we can ever know.

 

[ecco]

But humans adopted the habit of misusing words in that way, and so there they are, listed in the dictionary in all their irrational absurdity.

Gay used to mean happy. Queer used to mean odd. Now they still retain those meanings but also have new meanings. Why does that surprise or upset you? Languages evolve. We no longer use thee and thou and most have a hard time understanding "English" as it was written and spoken 600 years ago. There is nothing wrong with that.

In 5th grade (or thereabouts) I learned the proper usage of "me" and "I". Today, people regularly use "I" when, historically, the correct usage is "me".


I'm getting over being upset by it. I'm accepting it as part of the evolution of English.

Thou mayest continue to cling to the beauty of an unchanging world if thou so chooseth.

 

[ecco]

I actually had an atheist tell me the reason she didn't believe in any god or gods is because the magical pixies that she does believe in told her that no god or gods exist.

Are you 100% certain she wasn't just pulling your leg?

 

[PureX]

if everyone else is using the language differently than you, then *you* are the one misusing it.

I would LOVE to hear the logic behind this bit of sophistry!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Even atheists define atheism slightly different, so its best to ask them how exactly they define it. But in its broadest sense or at least as I define it, "It is the lack of believe in God or gods for whatever reason", and it doesn't really matter whether a person know anything about religion, or if they have spend any time looking into it or not. If they claim that they do not believe or are convince of the existence of gods then they are an atheist, even if they claim to believe in ghosts.

Also why to me, a person saying that they are agnostic doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because either you believe in god(s) or you don't. Looking at the difference:

There is a key distinction. An atheist doesn't believe in a god or divine being. ... However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it's impossible for human beings to know anything about how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.

Whether or not you are certain about it or believe it is unknowable doesn't really matter, because if it is unknowable, then you are not convinced about the existence of a gods, and in that case you are an atheist.
So at least to me, I don't think the label agnostic really adds a whole lot. Because an atheist doesn't claim to know whether or not gods exists or not, simply that they are not convinced, which is basically the same as saying that we don't know, and I doubt a lot of atheists would say that we can know for certain that gods doesn't exists or that we can ever know.

That's a new way for me to see that. Makes a whole lot of sense. I've always thought that if one never had evidence for god, why/how can one be an agnostic. If god is not in their concept of awareness due to no evidence, why would there be a possibility it could exist outside of just being an religious idea, concept, experience, or so have yo.

 

[PureX]

Gay used to mean happy. Queer used to mean odd. Now they still retain those meanings but also have new meanings. Why does that surprise or upset you?

It doesn't surprise nor upset me. But these are wildly biased and irrational common misuses of these words. And each time we misuse them in this way, we give longevity and unwarranted credence to the very bias and irrationality that spawned their misuse, originally. This may be of little concern to people in everyday conversations, but in a setting where people are attempting, at least, to discuss the viability of a proposed truth claim (as is the point of philosophical debate) these irrational biases and deliberately misleading abuses of terminology become catastrophic. And the debate becomes pointless.

Languages evolve. We no longer use thee and thou and most have a hard time understanding "English" as it was written and spoken 600 years ago. There is nothing wrong with that.

Which is why it's important not to allow common ignorance, bias, and the linguistic misuse it generates to override our logic, and reason, and intelligent debate about the ideas we're supposedly using these words to share, and investigate.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Eh. Uh. No. People who don't believe the Christian God but do believe in a God are called Deists, not atheists. Many of America's founding fathers were Deists, not Christians, and not atheists.

I can't connect the dots between that comment and mine.

People who don't believe the christian god but do believe in god are deist?

No. God that interacts with humanity isn't solely owned by christian dogma.

Not sure how you drew that conclusion, though. Thousands of people believe god interact with creation. Not deism at all. Tell them that, they'd probably faint. They depend on god's interaction. That's how they understand who god is. Deist (so learned) doesn't believe that god interacts with creation. The two ideas are not alike.

but how does this have to do with saying some athiests think more about the christian god rather than the supernatural itself and the variety of definitions of the term god?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Are you 100% certain she wasn't just pulling your leg?

I'm rarely 100% certain about anything... but in her case I'm at least 99% certain.

 

[Willamena]

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).

That's humanism rather than atheism, but, for many, humanism leads to atheism. So, yes.

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.

Atheism is but a general disbelief in gods, which implies a disbelief in the supernatural.

'Not believing,' as an act, requires a reason, just as believing requires a reason. That is to say that you don't get one without the other. So it's a choice between not believing based on lack of evidence, or not believing for some other reason. Atheism needn't refer to lack of evidence as its only support, as it has other supports.

 

[Willamena]

What is the opposite of belief?

Knowledge.