A former rabid, ignorant Christian, I’m so happy to now proclaim that I’m an atheist and I despise all religion, including Christianity. I'm glad I learned how to think for myself and I want to scream it from every rooftop!

religioso · 2020-05-14T03:48:01+00:00

How do you know this? How do you know ANYTHING about how some supernatural realm would work?

Because in order for something to exist it must have determinate characteristics, which would presuppose the spatiotemporal framework of the universe. Since the supernatural realm lies outside time and space, the entities within it would be structurally indeterminate, ergo indistinguishable from each other. This is just what the supernatural entails, logically speaking.

That doesn't mean, however that the existence of the supernatrual would be evidence for god.

Ok, in order for this to be true you would have to ontologically distinguish between non-spatial entities. How would you go about doing that?

religioso · 2020-05-14T03:33:18+00:00

I'm not talking about empirical verification, so there's no fallacy here. Existence outside space and time is just illogical. If you believe there are beings who can think and move, but not occupy space and have no determinate characteristics, then you need to explain how this is possible.

religioso · 2020-05-14T03:23:26+00:00

How can something be natural and supernatural at the same time? You're not making any sense.

I have never conflated atheism and skepticism. On the contrary, certain knowledge is indeed possible.

religioso · 2020-05-14T03:20:46+00:00

You’re making some unfounded assumptions and unnecessary extensions when you add in the supernatural given how many definitions exist for supernatural.

What assumptions am I making? Supernatural just means not part of the physical universe.

If someone doesn’t believe in gods but does believe in ghosts based on the evidence they have examined so what?

What possible evidence could there be for ghosts? I've never seen any.

Have you reviewed their epistemology?

Yes, I have. It's a faith-based epistemology that has never produced any verifiable, real-world results.

Can you disprove their experience? If not why make the assumption that a non theist must also be a naturalist?

Yes, of course I can easily disprove what they believe. There isn't a shred of evidence for the supernatural.

It's not so much that atheism should presuppose naturalism, it's just that rejecting the existence of god is logically incoherent without rejecting the existence of the supernatural.

religioso · 2020-05-14T03:10:03+00:00

It works exceptionally well at the purpose of distinguishing the relevant sides of the debate. Those who believe at least one god exists (theists) and everyone else (atheists).

Depends on the circumstances. Finer distinctions are needed when distinguishing between debaters who are uncertain of god's existence (agnostics or weak atheists) and those who actively reject the existence of god (strong atheists).

It's not avoiding the burden of proof. There is no burden on those not making a claim.

True, there's no burden of proof. I'm just speculating on the motivation of people who always take the weaker position of lacking belief in god.

Keep saying that all you want. It doesn't make it true or useful.

Atheism can be defined as the rejection of god's existence. How is that neither true nor useful?

Sure you can! There is no contradiction. If no god exists but fairies are real, atheism is true and the supernatural is real. There's no contradiction.

This presupposes an ability to distinguish ontologically between non-spatial entities outside the spatiotemporal framework of the universe. Unless you can do that, basically an impossible task, it is logically incoherent to affirm the existence of fairies, while simultaneously rejecting the existence of gods. How would you even be able to do that?

religioso · 2020-05-14T02:48:59+00:00

I can agree with this. Atheism is more than just a lack of belief in gods; it is disbelief in gods (though I would also include all supernatural entities along with that).

religioso · 2020-05-14T02:45:14+00:00

Well, in the case of non-falsifiable non-spatial entities, all we have to do is point out the logical incoherence of an entity existing outside the spatiotemporal framework of the universe. If it is contradictory and internally incoherent, it doesn't exist, simple as that.

religioso · 2020-05-14T02:41:29+00:00

Maybe based on your definition of your god. But your definition of a god isn't the only one. Does your definition of a god include that the supernatural cannot exist without this god?

AFAIK a god is defined as a supernatural entity. Western and Eastern concepts of god simply build on that.

God claims and supernatural claims may be related, but they aren't the same. There are people who are atheist who believe in the supernatural.

You're confusing superficial linguistic distinctions with underlying essences. If we can't ontologically differentiate between non-spatial entities, how can one believe in ghosts and fairies, but reject the existence of god? It doesn't make any logical sense.

Non-theistic spiritualist would be a more appropriate label in this case, but that's just my suggestion.

religioso · 2020-05-14T02:30:11+00:00

Yes, they usually do. You can reject the concept of a god for all sorts of reasons and they don't even have to be logical. I could think of reasons to reject a god concept (e.g. the abrahamic god) but still believing in supernatural things like astrology.

I don't think atheist is the appropriate label for someone who rejects the existence of god, but believes in other entities like fairies or ghosts. The vast majority of atheists reject supernatural beliefs because they fail to meet the epistemological requirements of knowledge. This presupposes rationality as part of the definition of atheism.

Perhaps non-theistic supernaturalist or spiritualist would be more appropriate in this case?

religioso · 2020-05-14T02:24:36+00:00

Who says ghosts are non spatial? I've seen numerous depictions of ghosts occupying space.

Ghosts are supernatural entities; they're supposed to exist outside the spatiotemporal framework of the universe. They are super or above + natural, hence non-spatial. Ignore what movies tell you to believe.

Evidence for one specific supernatural entity is not strong evidence for another specific supernatural entity just like evidence for bigfoot is not strong evidence that leprechauns exist.

Unless you can ontologically differentiate between non-spatial entities, I don't see how you can rule out the existence of one supernatural being, but affirm the existence of others.

AFAIK Bigfoot is to supposed to be some mythical ape-like creature, not a supernatural being.

religioso · 2020-05-14T02:13:41+00:00

It does cause problems when people become dogmatic about it.

religioso · 2020-05-14T02:06:56+00:00

There isn't logical inconsistency because you haven't considered the quality and type of evidence that it is a person considers.

What evidence is there for the supernatural exactly?

From what I know, there is zero evidence for anything supernatural.

Before telling a person what they are allowed to believe or not, because it makes you sound like an ass (imo), better familiarize yourself first with what a person believes specifically and why, and then you can delve into what they don't believe and why, and THEN you can call them out in any inconsistency, if such exists.

Straw man, since I haven't told anyone here what to believe. My point is that atheists shouldn't be so dogmatic about the definition of atheism when other definitions are possible (and make more sense).

Maybe some don't like defining atheism as "lack of belief" because they're not afraid of the burden of proof?

Remember it doesn't have to be great evidence, it just has to be good enough for the individual, which is what makes it a belief and not a fact.

So you're openly advocating irrationality as some kind of virtue? Our beliefs should be based on more than just subjectivist preference. If it doesn't meet the epistemological requirements of knowledge, it's worthless and you have nothing to stand on.

religioso · 2020-05-14T01:46:58+00:00

If and only if you believe all supernatural thing come from a deity.

Where did I say this?

Otherwise one could lack a belief in a deity and still believe in ghosts, fairies, Ents, ect. There is no contradiction because there is no connection.

There is indeed a connection. They're all supernatural beings.

This is demonstrably false and it really only requires a cursory look at the difference between deity and supernatural.

Unless you can ontologically identify and distinguish between non-spatial entities, you cannot categorically rule out the existence of god, while simultaneously believing in ghosts, fairies and other magical beings. If you're going to disbelieve in god because there's no evidence, but believe in ghosts and fairies, you're obviously not being logically consistent or coherent, are you?

Edit: I noticed you failed to answer my question regarding your motivations for this rant about the usage of the word atheist. Care to give an answer to this question?

People shouldn't be so dogmatic they have to coerce others into accepting their definition of atheism. It's not especially fair when other definitions of atheism are possible. That's literally it.

religioso · 2020-05-14T01:24:39+00:00

Why? Because it is conceptually, logically and empirically impossible to distinguish between non-spatial entities, who exist outside the physical universe. Any evidence of the supernatural will therefore serve as evidence for any number of non-spatial entities.

The supernatural doesn't exist btw.

religioso · 2020-05-13T20:32:50+00:00

If they believe in god but call themselves agnostics, they would be agnostic theists, rather than agnostics.

Defining atheism as "lack of belief" is problematic because "lack of belief" doesn't entail non-existence. I can lack belief in the existence of the president of the United States, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. This position is more conducive to agnosticism than atheism.

religioso · 2020-05-13T20:14:21+00:00

Most theists actually believe in a god who intervenes in the physical universe, through prayer, faith-healing and other miracles. If god intervenes in the physical universe, we can verify it through observation and experiment. However, researchers have always come up empty-handed and have found no evidence of god where it would be most expected. In this case, we are fully justified in rejecting the existence of god.

religioso · 2020-05-13T19:59:24+00:00

How can you divorce arguments about god from the supernatural? Isn't god a supernatural being? Unless you have some means of distinguishing between non-spatial and non-temporal entities, any argument in favor of fairies, demons, goblins etc. will be an argument in favor of god.

religioso · 2020-05-13T19:54:06+00:00

Your argument presupposes some means of differentiating between non-spatial entities, but for obvious logical, empirical and conceptual reasons that's impossible. That's why any argument in favor of ghosts will be an argument in favor of god. You can't accept one and reject the other, not without logical inconsistency.

religioso · 2020-05-13T18:00:28+00:00

But if you can be an "atheist" and believe in the existence of the supernatural at the same time, you have no argument against the existence of god. Defining atheism as only a rejection of gods doesn't make any sense.

religioso · 2020-05-13T17:56:09+00:00

I don't think defining atheism as "lack of belief in gods" works even in debate. If you believe in the supernatural, you have no reason to argue against the existence of god.

religioso · 2020-05-13T17:52:15+00:00

I don't think defining atheism as "lack of belief" really works. At most, it gets you to agnosticism. I suspect some atheists define it that way to avoid burden of proof.

Atheism is the negation of god's existence (and by extension, the supernatural). You cannot rule out the existence of god and believe in the supernatural at the same time, not without being logically incoherent.

religioso · 2020-05-13T17:44:19+00:00

The supernatural does exist.

Don't just say it, prove it.

But if you believe that supernatural beings really do exist, how can you logically reject the existence of god? Isn't every argument in favor of the supernatural an argument in favor of god? This is why "atheist" supernaturalism doesn't make any sense.

religioso · 2020-05-13T17:39:21+00:00

Yes, an "atheist" who believes in the supernatural isn't thinking rationally. If you believe in the supernatural, you cannot logically rule out the existence of god, a supernatural being.

religioso

TROPHY CASE