Does anyone follow the "Way"? ☯

[Free]

No True Scotsman 101.

Atheism means not believing in gods. It doesn't mean being a Brilliant™, or whatever Dawkins was trying to pawn off.

Let's test this.

Why do you not believe in a supernatural deity?

Define 'supernatural'.  If it exists, it is part of nature.


Also, in response to the OP: no fucking way.

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe, especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

[Free]

Why do you not believe in a supernatural deity?

1.  Why must a deity be supernatural?

Deity:

A deity or god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

[Free]

I ran a poll at AF asking if being an atheist meant rejecting the supernatural.  15% said yes.  Apparently Free is in that 15%.  You can't really argue the definition of words as people are free to mean whatever they like with them.  So long as there are others who share that usage, there's nothing particularly wrong with it.  If you were to argue that being atheist necessarily means rejecting the supernatural, you would be wrong by virtue of that other 85%.  For some atheists (and others), being atheist means rejecting the supernatural.  But it doesn't have to mean that, and for the majority, it doesn't.

And for Free, plenty of atheists are atheists by default, having never believed in a god.  There is no 'why' to their disbelieving, it's just a brute fact.

But the question we are seeking an answer to here is the question of why you do not believe in a deity. What is the reasoning? How do you come to the conclusion that deities don't exist?

There's nothing wrong with exploring the numerous reasons as to why we are atheistic.

[Thumpalumpacus]

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe, especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Deity:

A deity or god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

lol, so now you're fine with dictionary definitions rather than your own usage.

Now, go look up "atheist" in the dictionary. Report back with a link.

There's nothing wrong with exploring the numerous reasons as to why we are atheistic.

What if someone is an atheist not because they're rational, but for some other doctrinal reason?

[Free]

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe, especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Deity:

A deity or god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

lol, so now you're fine with dictionary definitions rather than your own usage.

Ummm ... the dictionary definitions are exactly the same as my own usage.

Now, go look up "atheist" in the dictionary. Report back with a link.

The definition is simple; an atheist does not believe in a supernatural deity. 

On the Dawkins Scale, I am a 7. I can make the positive claim that no supernatural deities exist and justify it due to the Evidence of Absence argument. Before anyone is even required to prove the existence of their supernatural deity, they must firstly prove the existence of the supernatural. If they can't do that, their deity cannot be proven to exist.

The state of the deity is supernatural. Therefore, if anyone says they believe in the supernatural, but then says, "God does does not exist," is not a true atheist, and their claim is nonsensical because if they believe in the supernatural, they cannot eliminate the possibility of a supernatural deity existing.

They may be a "de facto" atheist, but not an atheist in the purest sense. They may be a 5 or a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but certainly not a 7.

As long as you believe in the possibility that something supernatural exists, you cannot be certain that God does not exist.

Therefore, you're not fully atheistic.

There's nothing wrong with exploring the numerous reasons as to why we are atheistic.

What if someone is an atheist not because they're rational, but for some other doctrinal reason?

Our natural state is atheistic, as that is the way we are all born. But the moment you start believing in the supernatural, you cannot be a pure atheist as you must accept the possibility that a supernatural deity could exist.



Anything less than a 7 (such as a 5 or 6) only means you are atheistically inclined, but not fully atheistic.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The definition is simple; an atheist does not believe in a supernatural deity. 

Great. Now what if they don't believe in god, but believe black cats are bad luck? Are they therefore theists?

The state of the deity is supernatural. Therefore, if anyone says they believe in the supernatural, but then says, "God does does not exist," is not a true atheist, and their claim is nonsensical because if they believe in the supernatural, they cannot eliminate the possibility of a supernatural deity existing.

There's your category error showing up again.

They may be a "de facto" atheist, but not an atheist in the purest sense. They may be a 5 or a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but certainly not a 7.

Who cares what Dawkins says, besides Dawkins?

As long as you believe in the possibility that something supernatural exists, you cannot be certain that God does not exist.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know that god exists, but I certainly don't believe he does. Now, disbelieving in god(s), using the dictionary definition you yourself cited, am I an atheist?

And more to the point, should I care?

Therefore, you're not fully atheistic.

Yikes! I failed your test.

Our natural state is atheistic, as that is the way we are all born. But the moment you start believing in the supernatural, you cannot be a pure atheist as you must accept the possibility that a supernatural deity could exist.

In my experience, purity tests are manifestations of ideology rather than thinking. Like someone cares whether you think they are a pure atheist or not!

Anything less than a 7 (such as a 5 or 6) only means you are atheistically inclined, but not fully atheistic.

In one man's opinion. In my opinion, a person can reasonably say "I don't know, but I don't believe in gods". And you know what? That disbelief in gods makes them atheist, by the definition you yourself provided.

Knowledge and belief are two different things.

Back to the topic itself: There are Buddhists, Taoists, Confucians, and others who are religious in their practices but who do not believe in god(s). Just because you haven't met any doesn't mean they don't exist. It only means you haven't met them.

[Free]

The definition is simple; an atheist does not believe in a supernatural deity. 

Great. Now what if they don't believe in god, but believe black cats are bad luck? Are they therefore theists?

Of course not, but they are not fully atheistic as long as they believe in even the possibility that the supernatural exists. If you believe that the supernatural possibly exists, you must also acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a supernatural deity. It's very simple:

1. If you acknowledge the possibility that the supernatural exists, then it follows that a supernatural deity also can possibly exist. 

2. If you deny the possibility that the supernatural exists, then it follows that a supernatural deity also cannot possibly exist. 

They may be a "de facto" atheist, but not an atheist in the purest sense. They may be a 5 or a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but certainly not a 7.

Who cares what Dawkins says, besides Dawkins?

Real atheists do. That's who.

As long as you believe in the possibility that something supernatural exists, you cannot be certain that God does not exist.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know that god exists, but I certainly don't believe he does. Now, disbelieving in god(s), using the dictionary definition you yourself cited, am I an atheist?

And more to the point, should I care?

The true atheist claims "There are no gods."

Is that you?

Therefore, you're not fully atheistic.

Yikes! I failed your test.

That was expected.

Our natural state is atheistic, as that is the way we are all born. But the moment you start believing in the supernatural, you cannot be a pure atheist as you must accept the possibility that a supernatural deity could exist.

In my experience, purity tests are manifestations of ideology rather than thinking. Like someone cares whether you think they are a pure atheist or not!

There is a distinction between being wholly atheistic and being atheistically inclined.

You are a true agnostic who is atheistically inclined.

I am an atheist.

Anything less than a 7 (such as a 5 or 6) only means you are atheistically inclined, but not fully atheistic.

In one man's opinion. In my opinion, a person can reasonably say "I don't know, but I don't believe in gods". And you know what? That disbelief in gods makes them atheist, by the definition you yourself provided.

Knowledge and belief are two different things.

Back to the topic itself: There are Buddhists, Taoists, Confucians, and others who are religious in their practices but who do not believe in god(s). Just because you haven't met any doesn't mean they don't exist. It only means you haven't met them.

If you don't know, then your claim is meaningless in regards to being a pure atheist. You are still an agnostic regardless of your claim of a lack of belief.

[Dancefortwo]

Actually, now that I think about it I DO follow the way.     In 1937 Laurel and Hardy are doing it their way in, Way Out West. 


    

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course not, but they are not fully atheistic as long as they believe in even the possibility that the supernatural exists. If you believe that the supernatural possibly exists, you must also acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a supernatural deity. It's very simple:

1. If you acknowledge the possibility that the supernatural exists, then it follows that a supernatural deity also can possibly exist. 

2. If you deny the possibility that the supernatural exists, then it follows that a supernatural deity also cannot possibly exist. 

Oh, great, you're conflating atheism and rationality again. Do you not understand how to parse a multivariate issue?

Real atheists do. That's who.

lol, like Dawkins is your godling or something?

Sorry, I think for myself. If you like spoonfeeding, sup it up ... but spare me your preachments. They're not even your own thoughts, apparently.

The true atheist claims "There are no gods."

Is that you?

That's your definition.

Is there some reason I should give your thinking, such as it is, any gravity? You can't even read a dictionary so far as I can see.

That was expected.

Or ... planned.

See what happens when you don't consider other perspectives? See how brittle your thinking is?

No ... no, you don't.

There is a distinction between being wholly atheistic and being atheistically inclined.

You are a true agnostic who is atheistically inclined.

I am an atheist.

I'll let you know when your opinion of me matters to me.

If you don't know, then your claim is meaningless in regards to being a pure atheist. You are still an agnostic regardless of your claim of a lack of belief.

Absolutes are the bait for the small-minded. You've got a lot of thinking left to do in your life. Let's hope you get around to it soon.

[Dom]

So, let's define "supernatural". What qualifies as supernatural? Things we cannot sense or measure? I would maybe add to that "as yet".

Looking at science through history, do you think we have uncovered all there is?

And, if we haven't uncovered it yet, it's because we cannot sense or measure it.

So how do unknown phenomena and the supernatural differ? Where do you draw the line?

Because I know one thing, we are far from knowing everything there is to know.

[Dānu]

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe, especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Deity:

A deity or god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

lol, so now you're fine with dictionary definitions rather than your own usage.

Ummm ... the dictionary definitions are exactly the same as my own usage.

Now, go look up "atheist" in the dictionary. Report back with a link.

The definition is simple; an atheist does not believe in a supernatural deity. 

On the Dawkins Scale, I am a 7. I can make the positive claim that no supernatural deities exist and justify it due to the Evidence of Absence argument. Before anyone is even required to prove the existence of their supernatural deity, they must firstly prove the existence of the supernatural. If they can't do that, their deity cannot be proven to exist.

The state of the deity is supernatural. Therefore, if anyone says they believe in the supernatural, but then says, "God does does not exist," is not a true atheist, and their claim is nonsensical because if they believe in the supernatural, they cannot eliminate the possibility of a supernatural deity existing.

They may be a "de facto" atheist, but not an atheist in the purest sense. They may be a 5 or a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but certainly not a 7.

As long as you believe in the possibility that something supernatural exists, you cannot be certain that God does not exist.

Therefore, you're not fully atheistic.

The evidence for absence argument is an inductive argument, not a deductive one. Therefore, it can reduce the probability that the thing in question exists, but it cannot eliminate the possibility, as that would require a deductive argument. So, by your own admission, you do not eliminate the possibility that the supernatural or a supernatural god exists and are not a "true atheist" either. You think you've eliminated the possibility of the supernatural because you have erred in your logic. You can claim that the supernatural 100% does not exist, but unless that claim is supported by deductive reasoning, it is an irrational belief. I doubt you believe that the definition of an atheist is someone who irrationally doubts the supernatural. So you will need an ontological argument for the nonexistence of the supernatural. I don't know that you don't have one or that one doesn't exist, but I wouldn't be surprised if you don't have one.

The way you've defined atheism leads me to the conclusion that there are likely few or no "true atheists," which suggests your term and its use are not very useful.

The long and short is that the existence of the supernatural is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of a god. So one can concede the supernatural without conceding a god.

[Aegon]

@Free It feels like you're trying to make atheism synonymous with materialism.

[Free]

So, let's define "supernatural". What qualifies as supernatural? Things we cannot sense or measure? I would maybe add to that "as yet".

Perhaps you will find the following explanation acceptable.

"The supernatural encompasses supposed phenomena that aren't subject to the laws of nature. By definition, a supernatural manifestation or event requires a violation of physical law believed to have been attributed to interdimensional/extradimensional beings, such as angels, demons, gods, poltergeists, etc. It also includes claimed abilities embodied in or provided by such beings, including magic, telekinesis, levitation, precognition, and extrasensory perception."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

Looking at science through history, do you think we have uncovered all there is? And, if we haven't uncovered it yet, it's because we cannot sense or measure it. So how do unknown phenomena and the supernatural differ? Where do you draw the line?

Although we have not uncovered all there is, and never will, the one thing that we have never uncovered is anything supernatural according the explanation provided above. Throughout the centuries innumerable attempts to prove the existence of a supernatural deity have resulted in a 100% failure rate. Likewise for providing evidence of anything existing in a supernatural state at all.

Those innumerable failed attempts can be considered to be proof of impossibility and fall into the same category as "squaring the circle." This evidence is then added to the Evidence of Absence argument to justify the positive claim of "There are no gods."

Now, since a deity is considered to be a supernatural being, both the deity and it's supernatural aspect are entwined and inseparable. You cannot reject the deity without rejecting the supernatural aspect of it, for to claim that it is possible that something supernatural could exist implies the possibility that a deity could exist.

If one positively claims that no supernatural deity exists, yet claims that "something" supernatural could exist, then it follows that the deity could exist. You cannot exclude the possibility of a deity in existence. 

It is not unlike the natural world where some people claim that Big Foot exists. We cannot disprove it because we know it is possible, regardless of how unlikely and the lack of conclusive evidence.

[Dānu]

Looking at science through history, do you think we have uncovered all there is? And, if we haven't uncovered it yet, it's because we cannot sense or measure it. So how do unknown phenomena and the supernatural differ? Where do you draw the line?

Although we have not uncovered all there is, and never will, the one thing that we have never uncovered is anything supernatural according the explanation provided above. Throughout the centuries innumerable attempts to prove the existence of a supernatural deity have resulted in a 100% failure rate. Likewise for providing evidence of anything existing in a supernatural state at all.

Those innumerable failed attempts can be considered to be proof of impossibility and fall into the same category as "squaring the circle." This evidence is then added to the Evidence of Absence argument to justify the positive claim of "There are no gods."

The innumerable failed attempts constitutes an inductive argument against the existence of the supernatural, whereas the proof of impossibility is necessarily deductive. You've screwed up the logic once again. For the sake of simplicity, let's just say that, under your definition, the supernatural is any thing or cause that is not natural. Agreed?

[Free]

Looking at science through history, do you think we have uncovered all there is? And, if we haven't uncovered it yet, it's because we cannot sense or measure it. So how do unknown phenomena and the supernatural differ? Where do you draw the line?

Although we have not uncovered all there is, and never will, the one thing that we have never uncovered is anything supernatural according the explanation provided above. Throughout the centuries innumerable attempts to prove the existence of a supernatural deity have resulted in a 100% failure rate. Likewise for providing evidence of anything existing in a supernatural state at all.

Those innumerable failed attempts can be considered to be proof of impossibility and fall into the same category as "squaring the circle." This evidence is then added to the Evidence of Absence argument to justify the positive claim of "There are no gods."

The innumerable failed attempts constitutes an inductive argument against the existence of the supernatural, whereas the proof of impossibility is necessarily deductive.  You've screwed up the logic once again.  For the sake of simplicity, let's just say that, under your definition, the supernatural is any thing or cause that is not natural.  Agreed?

The innumerable failed attempts are entered in as proof of impossibility, which is then added to the Evidence of Absence argument.

I do not agree with your understanding of supernatural.

Non Natural:

1.1 Philosophy: Existing, but not part of the natural world (a term used by G.E. Moore of ethical properties).

https://www.lexico.com/definition/non-natural

[Dānu]

Although we have not uncovered all there is, and never will, the one thing that we have never uncovered is anything supernatural according the explanation provided above. Throughout the centuries innumerable attempts to prove the existence of a supernatural deity have resulted in a 100% failure rate. Likewise for providing evidence of anything existing in a supernatural state at all.

Those innumerable failed attempts can be considered to be proof of impossibility and fall into the same category as "squaring the circle." This evidence is then added to the Evidence of Absence argument to justify the positive claim of "There are no gods."

The innumerable failed attempts constitutes an inductive argument against the existence of the supernatural, whereas the proof of impossibility is necessarily deductive.  You've screwed up the logic once again.  For the sake of simplicity, let's just say that, under your definition, the supernatural is any thing or cause that is not natural.  Agreed?

The innumerable failed attempts are entered in as proof of impossibility, which is then added to the Evidence of Absence argument.

How many failed attempts to observe a black swan constitute proof of the impossibility of a black swan? One? Two? Twenty? A thousand? At what point have we proven black swans are impossible?

I do not agree with your understanding of supernatural.

Non Natural:

1.1 Philosophy: Existing, but not part of the natural world (a term used by G.E. Moore of ethical properties).

https://www.lexico.com/definition/non-natural

Fair enough. But I don't understand what you see as the essential difference is (or are). What, in addition to not being natural, is required for something to be supernatural?

[jerry mcmasters]

So, let's define "supernatural". What qualifies as supernatural? Things we cannot sense or measure? I would maybe add to that "as yet".

Looking at science through history, do you think we have uncovered all there is?

And, if we haven't uncovered it yet, it's because we cannot sense or measure it.

So how do unknown phenomena and the supernatural differ? Where do you draw the line?

Because I know one thing, we are far from knowing everything there is to know.

Can there be supernatural without life?  It would seem anything supernatural that is alive fits the category of "deity."  If one believes there are supernatural non-living things (whatever that would look like) then one could be an atheist (I think) that still believes in the supernatural.

[jerry mcmasters]

Because I know one thing, we are far from knowing everything there is to know.

Speak for yourself, Dom.

[Free]

The innumerable failed attempts constitutes an inductive argument against the existence of the supernatural, whereas the proof of impossibility is necessarily deductive.  You've screwed up the logic once again.  For the sake of simplicity, let's just say that, under your definition, the supernatural is any thing or cause that is not natural.  Agreed?

The innumerable failed attempts are entered in as proof of impossibility, which is then added to the Evidence of Absence argument.

How many failed attempts to observe a black swan constitute proof of the impossibility of a black swan?  One? Two? Twenty?  A thousand?  At what point have we proven black swans are impossible?

 

Do swans exist in the natural world? Do we have evidence of other animals exhibiting uncommon colors, such as a white rhino?

First you must eliminate the possibility, and with a black swan you cannot. It can exist in nature, just like a white rhino.

Your comparison is false as you are conflating the natural of which supporting evidence exists demonstrating a valid possibility, with the supernatural of which not a shred of evidence exists to demonstrate any possibility at all.

I do not agree with your understanding of supernatural.

Non Natural:

1.1 Philosophy: Existing, but not part of the natural world (a term used by G.E. Moore of ethical properties).

https://www.lexico.com/definition/non-natural

Fair enough.  But I don't understand what you see as the essential difference is (or are).  What, in addition to not being natural, is required for something to be supernatural?

I refer you to my earlier post explaining supernatural. Perhaps a degree of sentience is what distinguishes one from the other, as well as the non natural not denoting the aspect of something that can be construed as magical.

[Dānu]

The innumerable failed attempts are entered in as proof of impossibility, which is then added to the Evidence of Absence argument.

How many failed attempts to observe a black swan constitute proof of the impossibility of a black swan?  One? Two? Twenty?  A thousand?  At what point have we proven black swans are impossible?

 

Do swans exist in the natural world? Do we have evidence of other animals exhibiting uncommon colors, such as a white rhino?

First you must eliminate the possibility, and with a black swan you cannot. It can exist in nature, just like a white rhino.

Your comparison is false as you are conflating the natural of which supporting evidence exists demonstrating a valid possibility, with the supernatural of which not a shred of evidence exists to demonstrate any possibility at all.

So, in other words, we can't eliminate the possibility of something if there is a clearly existing analog of something. Well, the existence of the supernatural is analogous to the existence of the supernatural in that they are both substances. Since we know one kind of substance exists, and we know that substances come in near infinite variety, by your own logic you cannot conclude that the supernatural is impossible, because the existence of the natural is evidence of the existence of the supernatural.

But this isn't about possibility, but rather about impossibility. I notice that you didn't actually answer the question. If something in fact exists, it's certainly possible. If we examine all swans that exist, and find that none of them are black, we can conclude that no black swans exist. Short of examining every swan, say all but one or two or twenty, how many swans would we need to examine to determine that no black swans exist? Something is only impossible if it cannot exist. It only takes one counter-example to show that the supernatural exists. Short of examining all things, how many observations does it take to conclude that we will never observe a black swan or the supernatural?

[Dānu]

I do not agree with your understanding of supernatural.

Non Natural:

1.1 Philosophy: Existing, but not part of the natural world (a term used by G.E. Moore of ethical properties).

https://www.lexico.com/definition/non-natural

Fair enough.  But I don't understand what you see as the essential difference is (or are).  What, in addition to not being natural, is required for something to be supernatural?

I refer you to my earlier post explaining supernatural. Perhaps a degree of sentience is what distinguishes one from the other, as well as the non natural not denoting the aspect of something that can be construed as magical.

I don't understand how you are relating the non-natural to the magical. Are you suggesting the supernatural is magical and the non-natural is not?

I did refer to your earlier definition and still don't understand which differences are essential and which aren't. Are you saying that something has to be sentient to be supernatural? If not, then what are the essential differences?

[Free]

Fair enough.  But I don't understand what you see as the essential difference is (or are).  What, in addition to not being natural, is required for something to be supernatural?

I refer you to my earlier post explaining supernatural. Perhaps a degree of sentience is what distinguishes one from the other, as well as the non natural not denoting the aspect of something that can be construed as magical.

I don't understand how you are relating the non-natural to the magical.  Are you suggesting the supernatural is magical and the non-natural is not?

I did refer to your earlier definition and still don't understand which differences are essential and which aren't.  Are you saying that something has to be sentient to be supernatural?  If not, then what are the essential differences?

Non natural seems to refer to "everything" not found in the natural world and appears to be broader in its inclusion such as including non sentient objects, and although it doesn't seem to carry the same characteristics that we see in our understanding of supernatural, it still nonetheless has no more evidence for its existence as the supernatural. That appears to be the only comparison. 

When we speak of supernatural we are generally speaking of something such as a sentient god, angel, demon, or an ability drawn out of sentience such as telekinesis, levitation, etc.

[mordant]

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe, especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Deity:

A deity or god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

lol, so now you're fine with dictionary definitions rather than your own usage.

Ummm ... the dictionary definitions are exactly the same as my own usage.

Now, go look up "atheist" in the dictionary. Report back with a link.

The definition is simple; an atheist does not believe in a supernatural deity. 

On the Dawkins Scale, I am a 7. I can make the positive claim that no supernatural deities exist and justify it due to the Evidence of Absence argument. Before anyone is even required to prove the existence of their supernatural deity, they must firstly prove the existence of the supernatural. If they can't do that, their deity cannot be proven to exist.

The state of the deity is supernatural. Therefore, if anyone says they believe in the supernatural, but then says, "God does does not exist," is not a true atheist, and their claim is nonsensical because if they believe in the supernatural, they cannot eliminate the possibility of a supernatural deity existing.

They may be a "de facto" atheist, but not an atheist in the purest sense. They may be a 5 or a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but certainly not a 7.

As long as you believe in the possibility that something supernatural exists, you cannot be certain that God does not exist.

Therefore, you're not fully atheistic.

There's nothing wrong with exploring the numerous reasons as to why we are atheistic.

What if someone is an atheist not because they're rational, but for some other doctrinal reason?

Our natural state is atheistic, as that is the way we are all born. But the moment you start believing in the supernatural, you cannot be a pure atheist as you must accept the possibility that a supernatural deity could exist.



Anything less than a 7 (such as a 5 or 6) only means you are atheistically inclined, but not fully atheistic.

Dawkins is outside his area of expertise here -- which often gets him into trouble. I've never bought into his scale because it perpetuates the wrong-headed notion that there's some kind of gradual continuum between theism and atheism with agnosticism as a sort of conceptual midpoint.

Agnosticism addresses knowledge claims (there's no way to KNOW there's a god) and atheism addresses belief claims (I don't BELIEVE there's a god). They vary independently of each other and influence each other but do not belong on the same scale together.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The long and short is that the existence of the supernatural is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of a god.  So one can concede the supernatural without conceding a god.

And so too may one believe in supernatural events, and yet still not believe in gods, which has obviously been my point in this conversation.

[Paleophyte]

Anything less than a 7 (such as a 5 or 6) only means you are atheistically inclined, but not fully atheistic.

Ah. A self-righteous atheist. Good for you.

Atheist: One who does not believe in a deity or deities.

Period. Full stop. You will find nothing there about rejecting the existence of deities, the supernatural, or anything else. Any attempt to insert them is little more than playing the definition game that we so love from apologetics.

We don't believe in god(s) because there's no evidence for them. It's that simple.

There is an abundance of evidence for atheists who do believe in some form of the supernatural. Trying to argue them out of existence is no more rational than trying to argue deities into existence. Both stances ignore reality.