Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I think you are making a category mistake. There are physical and metaphysical claims. God's existence falls completely in the metaphysical department because if he exists, he transcends the physical world. Metaphysics is a deeper and more fundamental layer of reality than the physical.

My description should make that clear (every single category is completely nonphysical):

A necessary being, timeless, changeless, immaterial, and capable of causing and sustaining the universe would be definitionally, ultimate reality. What could be more foundational than having an explanation that is ultimate reality? Literally the most foundational explanation possible.

If you deny there is a deeper layer than the physical, that's just question-begging because you are defining reality to be something that cannot contain God.

met·a·phys·ics
/ˈmedəˌfiziks/
noun
noun: metaphysics
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

We are talking about evidence for gods. Any evidence for gods will be found in the physical world. Philosophical arguments aren't evidence.

Are you actually arguing that gods cannot exist in the material world?

Stevie refuses to accept that no matter how metaphysical he makes his gawd, if it acts on the physical universe, it'll leave evidence in said universe. If mental gymnastics were an Olympic event, Stevie would be odds-on favorite for the gold with his antics dancing around this point.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Capitalizing God is a bad habit.

Fixed that for ya', Stevie!

[Cavebear]

[quote="DrewPaul" pid='455522' dateline='1741703842']
@Cavebear

"DrewPaul: You won't find a quote from me where I said that".

I copied it directly from one of your posts. Did you think I just made it up or altered it?

"DrewPaul: Citing facts that must be true for a claim to be true isn't circular reasoning".

As much as it pains me to say; you are correct and I was wrong. I phrased my reply about that poorly. I was trying to get at the idea that evidence and facts are not exactly the same things and many people confuse the two. Some items of "evidence" turn out to be inaccurate.

In science, a study can have a flaw in what is considered evidence at the time. In legal issues, witnesses falsely identify an accused person and misremember other matters that were originally accepted during a trial as "evidence" but disproven later. By which I mean, sometimes "evidence" is not actually "fact".

[Cavebear]

Holy Mackeral!



I get busy around the house for One Day and there are dozens of posts in this thread.  And too many to organize a reply to.  

DrewPaul sure has been busy, LOL!  And I love all the replies to his posts (with which I mostly agree).  A sentence in each post deserves a reply, but I just don't feel up to the task right now.  I want to post "like" on about 2 dozen posts right now, but that feels like an abuse of the feature.  Someone needs to summarize the discussion here and it isn't me.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, I did not use reason and logic to arrive at belief in God. The message of the NT and the person of Jesus is compelling and I responded to that.

There you have it. Unreasonable, illogical, I'm just going by my feelings. Yet still trying to appeal to evidence to make his case.

Your feelings are not evidence of anything but your feelings. Nothing more, nothing less.

[KingEric]

I've done nothing but offer facts that make my contention more probable. I don't know for a fact its true. Either our universe was intentionally caused to exist...or it wasn't. Barring evidence that rules out one or the other either proposition is reasonable.

Your contention would be more probable if every star was surrounded with habitable planets, each in perfect equilibrium. They wouldn’t have to have shifting tectonic plates causing earthquakes or volcanoes. No dangerously sporadic weather conditions would exist, and we would be impervious to UV radiation, if it existed at all. There would be a higher ratio of land to water, and a greater percentage of the water would be drinkable. The requirements for human life wouldn’t be so minuscule and tiny. We would possibly even be able to survive in outer space and explore it with ease. And while this type of universe may not be able to operate on its own according to our current laws of physics, it wouldn’t have to, because it would be held in place by god. The very fact that our universe always adheres to physical constants and operates so well on its own is proof in itself that god is superfluous.


We live on an insignificant speck, racing around a massive fireball at break-neck speed in the vacuum of space. Our planet is bombarded by meteors and asteroids, encompassed with natural disasters, and has undergone known mass extinction events. Our source of light and energy gives us cancer. Why would you say that this planet is intelligently designed? Why would you call it intended for human life when everything around us is telling us otherwise?

[1Sam15]

Thanks @SteveII for answering 

If I may, can I recap what I think you believe and maybe you can correct me and maybe answer additional questions?

Correct me where I’m wrong please.

You believe a creator god was never created, it always existed, correct?

You believe at some point in the creator god existence it was the ONLY thing existing? Most people can’t conceive total nothingness, can you?

Then, for some reason, the creator god created it’s very first thing, from nothing, correct?


Why do you believe this? 

Did you use reason and logic to come to this belief? If so can you show your work so I can maybe get a better idea of what I’m missing concerning the most important thing in a humans life?

Thanks

Your summary is correct.

We can understand the concept of nothing. What it is like is probably beyond us to understand.

No, I did not use reason and logic to arrive at belief in God. The message of the NT and the person of Jesus is compelling and I responded to that.

As I said a page or so ago, arguments don't prove god or God. What they do is provide the permission structure to believe because of other reasons.

So basically you are just believing this because it makes you feel good inside.

Is there ANYTHING at all that would change your belief?

Of course not. Your entire identity can only work if you convince yourself this is true.

[SteveII]

Your summary is correct.

We can understand the concept of nothing. What it is like is probably beyond us to understand.

No, I did not use reason and logic to arrive at belief in God. The message of the NT and the person of Jesus is compelling and I responded to that.

As I said a page or so ago, arguments don't prove god or God. What they do is provide the permission structure to believe because of other reasons.

So basically you are just believing this because it makes you feel good inside.

Is there ANYTHING at all that would change your belief?

Of course not. Your entire identity can only work if you convince yourself this is true.

Since you and @Thumpalumpacus made basically the same comment, this will be for both of you.

Thinking something is compelling is not the same thing as "feelings." The gospel is compelling because it contains a description and prescription for the human condition. It extends promises of a better, internal life. Believing that it is true would involve assenting to facts and truths that are a mix of reasoning, faith, and resonance with your own internal thoughts. Responding to it and then experiencing the (in my case gradual) change in one's life is evidence of the truth of its claims. Seeing the experience in others you trust is further evidence.

No, there is not anything I can think of that would change my belief because internal experience is more veridical than external arguments.

C.S. Lewis famously stated, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." So there is more than "feelings" wrapped up in the question.

[Rhythmcs]

So close, but your faith is too shallow and disingenuous for you to let it be itself. You didn't argue your way into it. You felt your way into it. Why is that so goddamned embarrassing? Stop it with the whole "it's effect in peoples lives is evidence of the truth of it's claims" nonsense. All religions effect their followers lives...and you know that.

[DrewPaul]

@KingEric

I've done nothing but offer facts that make my contention more probable. I don't know for a fact its true. Either our universe was intentionally caused to exist...or it wasn't. Barring evidence that rules out one or the other either proposition is reasonable.

Your contention would be more probable if every star was surrounded with habitable planets, each in perfect equilibrium. They wouldn’t have to have shifting tectonic plates causing earthquakes or volcanoes. No dangerously sporadic weather conditions would exist, and we would be impervious to UV radiation, if it existed at all. There would be a higher ratio of land to water, and a greater percentage of the water would be drinkable. The requirements for human life wouldn’t be so minuscule and tiny. We would possibly even be able to survive in outer space and explore it with ease. And while this type of universe may not be able to operate on its own according to our current laws of physics, it wouldn’t have to, because it would be held in place by god.

Your counter contention would be vastly more probable if the universe had no life, no planets, no stars and no laws of physics. Or if the universe didn't exist at all. Would anyone think to themselves if mindless lifeless natural forces exist it wouldn't be the least surprising that they caused a universe with the myriad of physical laws needed for life to exist? That's how it is with mindless natural forces, you turn your back on them and the next thing you know they're causing a universe to exist that proceeds to create the ingredients (from scratch) necessary for humans to exist. Your contention is we owe our existence to natural forces that didn't care if planets, stars, laws of physics or space time existed. By forces that didn't care if the ingredients for life to exist ended up being spread all over the universe. The best evidence we could have that our existence wasn't intended would be our non-existence. But that didn't happen did it?
 

The very fact that our universe always adheres to physical constants and operates so well on its own is proof in itself that god is superfluous.

Yet that's exactly how we mere mortal humans make things. When you buy a car do you expect to pop the hood and find the engineer with his hands on peddles making the car move? I have a laptop I use I don't see any of its creators hovering around to make sure things working. They intentionally design them to run on their own.
 

We live on an insignificant speck, racing around a massive fireball at break-neck speed in the vacuum of space. Our planet is bombarded by meteors and asteroids, encompassed with natural disasters, and has undergone known mass extinction events. Our source of light and energy gives us cancer. Why would you say that this planet is intelligently designed? Why would you call it intended for human life when everything around us is telling us otherwise?

The fact that scientists in the field of cosmology believe in order for a universe to have the properties to cause life to exist by rote chance, requires an infinitude of universes. That's not theists or theologians making this claim, its atheist scientists who are experts in their field. The people atheists normally practically worship unless they say something they don't like.

[Rhythmcs]

Would anyone think to themselves if mindless lifeless natural forces exist it wouldn't be the least surprising that they caused a universe with the myriad of physical laws needed for life to exist? That's how it is with mindless natural forces, you turn your back on them and the next thing you know they're causing a universe to exist that proceeds to create the ingredients (from scratch) necessary for humans to exist. Your contention is we owe our existence to natural forces that didn't care if planets, stars, laws of physics or space time existed. By forces that didn't care if the ingredients for life to exist ended up being spread all over the universe. The best evidence we could have that our existence wasn't intended would be our non-existence. But that didn't happen did it?

Does organic chemistry care?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So basically you are just believing this because it makes you feel good inside.

Is there ANYTHING at all that would change your belief?

Of course not. Your entire identity can only work if you convince yourself this is true.

Since you and @Thumpalumpacus made basically the same comment, this will be for both of you.

Thinking something is compelling is not the same thing as "feelings." The gospel is compelling because it contains a description and prescription for the human condition. It extends promises of a better, internal life.  Believing that it is true would involve assenting to facts and truths that are a mix of reasoning, faith, and resonance with your own internal thoughts. Responding to it and then experiencing the (in my case gradual) change in one's life is evidence of the truth of its claims. Seeing the experience in others you trust is further evidence.

No, there is not anything I can think of that would change my belief because internal experience is more veridical than external arguments.

C.S. Lewis famously stated, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."  So there is more than "feelings" wrapped up in the question.

Yeah, it's feelings, more or less. Your pastors didn't logic you into belief. You appended the "logic" latter in an attempt to assuage the doubts. I'm sure that's what's happening here, though I could be wrong, and you are actually trying to convince us with what passes for reason in your world. But I very much doubt you scanned the menu of faiths and told your waiter, "I'll try the Christianity, and I'll have some philosophy on the side."

And frankly, I don't care what CS Lewis wrote. He's not a sharp thinker.

[DrewPaul]

Would anyone think to themselves if mindless lifeless natural forces exist it wouldn't be the least surprising that they caused a universe with the myriad of physical laws needed for life to exist? That's how it is with mindless natural forces, you turn your back on them and the next thing you know they're causing a universe to exist that proceeds to create the ingredients (from scratch) necessary for humans to exist. Your contention is we owe our existence to natural forces that didn't care if planets, stars, laws of physics or space time existed. By forces that didn't care if the ingredients for life to exist ended up being spread all over the universe. The best evidence we could have that our existence wasn't intended would be our non-existence. But that didn't happen did it?

Does organic chemistry care?

If naturalism (atheism) is correct natural forces didn't intend spacetime, stars, solar systems, gravity, planets, the laws of physics or the ingredients to cause life to exist. Natural forces didn't intend to cause a universe to exist and the last thing mindless lifeless forces intended to exist is intelligent life. None of these things is required for natural forces to exist yet all of them are required for us to exist.

Intelligent beings have caused a virtual universe to exist using the theistic method of design, plan and engineering. Do you think natural forces could cause the virtual universe to exist? If not why not. Its got to be easier than causing the real universe to exist...right? I would say that mindless natural forces minus plan or intent couldn't cause a laptop to exist. But some how such forces without any intent to do so caused intelligent life to exist?

[CapriMark1]

If naturalism (atheism) is correct natural forces didn't intend spacetime, stars, solar systems, gravity, planets, the laws of physics or the ingredients to cause life to exist. Natural forces didn't intend to cause a universe to exist and the last thing mindless lifeless forces intended to exist is intelligent life. None of these things is required for natural forces to exist yet all of them are required for us to exist.

Intelligent beings have caused a virtual universe to exist using the theistic method of design, plan and engineering. Do you think natural forces could cause the virtual universe to exist? If not why not. Its got to be easier than causing the real universe to exist...right? I would say that mindless natural forces minus plan or intent couldn't cause a laptop to exist. But some how such forces without any intent to do so caused intelligent life to exist?

I am going to draw an analogy here:

The inventor of the computer (and for the sake of the argument, let's assume it was Alan Turing) had no intention of creating a virtual universe.  His only intent was to solve a problem - one he did with spectacular results!

By the same token, the universe didn't have an intent to create intelligent life.  But that was the result.

The question we are trying to answer is if there was a creator who either set in motion or guided the universe to create intelligent life.  The fact that there is intelligent life doesn't imply that was the intent.  We have to look elsewhere for that.

When I look, I don't see evidence of a creator, nor do I see evidence of an intent.  I see the result, but the results don't imply that there was an intent, in much the same way Allan Turing didn't intend to create a virtual universe.

[Starseed]

Does organic chemistry care?

If naturalism (atheism) is correct natural forces didn't intend spacetime, stars, solar systems, gravity, planets, the laws of physics or the ingredients to cause life to exist. Natural forces didn't intend to cause a universe to exist and the last thing mindless lifeless forces intended to exist is intelligent life. None of these things is required for natural forces to exist yet all of them are required for us to exist.

Intelligent beings have caused a virtual universe to exist using the theistic method of design, plan and engineering. Do you think natural forces could cause the virtual universe to exist? If not why not. Its got to be easier than causing the real universe to exist...right? I would say that mindless natural forces minus plan or intent couldn't cause a laptop to exist. But some how such forces without any intent to do so caused intelligent life to exist?

Hi there.

I don't suppose natural forces actually "intend" for anything at all. My toaster doesn't have to be emotionally invested in my daily breakfast to toast my bread. What you're doing here is what a lot of god proponents are usually guilty of: anthropomorphization. You've grown accustomed to seeing the world as a human your entire life, and now you're projecting these thoughts and characteristics you've developed over time onto non-human systems, without realizing. Mindless processes don't necessarily result in impossible outcomes simply because there's no purpose or intention behind them. I reject the suggestion that our universe is trying to do something or anything at all. You can't prove that it is. The core elements that constitute life on our planet are among the most common in the entire universe (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc.), so we can't just write off the probabilistic nature of emergent complexity.

You mentioned something about intelligent beings causing a virtual universe, and it amused me a little, because I can create an argument for evolution from this thought process. For instance, the lineage of video games can be traced from Pong to Minecraft to VR. We can examine the gradual, incremental development, as well as countless iterations of games (both hardware and software), over time. VR didn't just pop out of nowhere. We can draw out the history of gaming that led up to the discovery of VR. The virtual universe we create are just crude approximations of our observable reality, with accumulated life knowledge and experience, in tandem with the evolution of tech, serving as the foundation. If we follow this train of thought, I'd say we can conclude, with confidence, that complexity requires time, iterations, tweaking and development, and this is in perfect consonance with evolution concepts.

Finally, I think you might be committing a category error, trying to suggest that the humans creating simulations is the same as an invisible deity creating the universe. For starters, we can learn and understand how simulations are produced, and these processes are repeatable, so it's a bit of a stretch to compare a digital simulation to a universe that we haven't even fully understood.

[Starseed]

If naturalism (atheism) is correct...

By the way, naturalism and atheism are totally NOT synonymous. Don't know where you got that from.

[Deesse23]

Does organic chemistry care?

If naturalism (atheism) is correct natural forces didn't intend spacetime, stars, solar systems, gravity, planets, the laws of physics or the ingredients to cause life to exist. Natural forces didn't intend to cause a universe to exist and the last thing mindless lifeless forces intended to exist is intelligent life. None of these things is required for natural forces to exist yet all of them are required for us to exist.

So what, dear puddle?
If natual constants were different no star would ever have formed? So what? Life would never have formed? So what? Maybe id didnt in 100000 universes, yet it did in 1, and you are sitting in #1 and wondering. So what?

We exist, our universe exists? So what?

[Minimalist]

C.S. Lewis famously stated, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."  So there is more than "feelings" wrapped up in the question.

And H. L. Mencken said:

There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus arose from the dead or He didn't. If He did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if He did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

It's nonsense. Cobbled together from antiquity to keep the dolts in line.

[Deesse23]

If naturalism (atheism) is correct...

By the way, naturalism and atheism are totally NOT synonymous. Don't know where you got that from.

Yep, theists always conveniently ignore those cute little magic, universe creating, pink Pixies.

[Rhythmcs]

Does organic chemistry care?

If naturalism (atheism) is correct natural forces didn't intend spacetime, stars, solar systems, gravity, planets, the laws of physics or the ingredients to cause life to exist. Natural forces didn't intend to cause a universe to exist and the last thing mindless lifeless forces intended to exist is intelligent life. None of these things is required for natural forces to exist yet all of them are required for us to exist.

Naturalism and atheism aren't interchangeable.   Just like the majority of theistic gods need not create universes or life.

Anyway, I'm reiterating a point of supposed agreement between us based on your previous comments.  You and I both can or could accept that the explanation for life is organic chemistry, and that organic chemistry doesn't care.  You may think, as a theist, that your gods personal and intervening nature is expressed in it's desire to "set the conditions".  I do not....but either way, we both accept that organic chemistry is the explanation for life as we know it.  Thus....

Your contention is we owe our existence to natural forces that didn't care

-Seems to me that this isn't my contention, but our contention.  We both think we owe our existence to natural forces that don't care.  I'd be surprised if you were willing to die on the hill of physics caring...either.  Go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong but you don't think that the reason things fall down is because gravity wants them to...eh?  As above, you think -those- things may owe their existence to some particular god, and I don't.  That's the difference between us here.  Not naturalism or supernaturalism.  Not even theism or atheism.  

Supernaturalism could be true and your contention could still be false.  
Theism could be true and your contention could still be false.

Intelligent beings have caused a virtual universe to exist using the theistic method of design, plan and engineering. Do you think natural forces could cause the virtual universe to exist? If not why not. Its got to be easier than causing the real universe to exist...right? I would say that mindless natural forces minus plan or intent couldn't cause a laptop to exist. But some how such forces without any intent to do so caused intelligent life to exist?

I see.  God was an engineer, then god was a biologist, then god was a physicist, and now god's a programmer.  

Do you consider yourself mindless?  Is it possible that's another thing you're conflating with naturalness, as you've conflated so many other things? At any rate, no, I don't think that mindless forces will come up with laptops...conveniently, we see no laptops in nature until mindful forces are there to make them. What kind of batshit question is that supposed to be? Is this the next thing you're going to pretend to give a shit about for a few pages? As for the rest, appears to be the case, doesn't it..and not just according to me. You don't think organic chemistry is mindful...do you....? You don't think physics is mindful....do you...?

You think there are "conditions" which, once met, produce planets and life. So do I.

[mordant]

C.S. Lewis famously stated, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."  So there is more than "feelings" wrapped up in the question.

Reminds of me of his false trichotomy "liar, lunatic or son of god". There ARE other choices. Complete fiction. Well meaning or effective teacher but still misguided or subject to delusions of grandeur at times. And so forth.

What Lewis wants is controversy / argument about Christianity and Jesus, not indifference or lack of enthusiasm. So he tries to exclude anything that is a middle ground, as it makes it possible to assess Christianity as something not particularly Special, that might, like all other human ideas, have some things going for and against it.

[mordant]

The fact that scientists in the field of cosmology believe in order for a universe to have the properties to cause life to exist by rote chance, requires an infinitude of universes. That's not theists or theologians making this claim, its atheist scientists who are experts in their field. The people atheists normally practically worship unless they say something they don't like.

I suppose > 1 universe is helpful but 1 universe with a staggeringly large amount of space and time has always seemed like plenty to me. Humans live on such a small time scale in such a tiny corner of the universe that it's hard for them to conceive of how much time and space there is for a virtually infinite number of things to happen such that the right combination is hit upon.

As I've said before, I don't reject the multiverse, but also don't need it to patch up some problem with this universe or to provide me with better odds. And I think you may well be overestimating why so many scientists embrace the multiverse. I don't think it is just to relieve a philosophical tension of some sort.

[mordant]

If naturalism (atheism) is correct...

By the way, naturalism and atheism are totally NOT synonymous. Don't know where you got that from.

I suppose he thinks they are synonymous because naturalism asserts there is no supernatural, that the natural world is all there is.

You're right that they aren't synonymous, but it would be hard to be an atheist while still believing in the supernatural, and I don't think the vast majority of atheists intellectually accept anything could be supernatural, because once you accept invisible beings and realms, a god could be asserted to exist there, and you have to deal with all the tiresome arguments that arise from that.

In theory I could be an atheist and believe in some supernatural realm that doesn't have any gods, some sort of godless or god-optional Eastern-style cosmology, say. But I don't recall meeting such a beast in the wild, either online or in person.

[Starseed]

By the way, naturalism and atheism are totally NOT synonymous. Don't know where you got that from.

I suppose he thinks they are synonymous because naturalism asserts there is no supernatural, that the natural world is all there is.

You're right that they aren't synonymous, but it would be hard to be an atheist while still believing in the supernatural, and I don't think the vast majority of atheists intellectually accept anything could be supernatural, because once you accept invisible beings and realms, a god could be asserted to exist there, and you have to deal with all the tiresome arguments that arise from that.

In theory I could be an atheist and believe in some supernatural realm that doesn't have any gods, some sort of godless or god-optional Eastern-style cosmology, say. But I don't recall meeting such a beast in the wild, either online or in person.

They do exist though.

We've got Buddhist atheists. They reject deities but believe in karma and rebirth.

Jain and Taoist traditions reject creator gods but accept metaphysical frameworks that would set any strict naturalist off.

Your unfamiliarity with atheists who believe in the supernatural may have more to do with your social circle than the philosophy itself. I have friends  here in Nigeria who don't believe in the religious god but believe in supernatural laws and the concept of "black magic" and stuff like "juju" (voodoo in our local Nigerian parlance).

[mordant]

I suppose he thinks they are synonymous because naturalism asserts there is no supernatural, that the natural world is all there is.

You're right that they aren't synonymous, but it would be hard to be an atheist while still believing in the supernatural, and I don't think the vast majority of atheists intellectually accept anything could be supernatural, because once you accept invisible beings and realms, a god could be asserted to exist there, and you have to deal with all the tiresome arguments that arise from that.

In theory I could be an atheist and believe in some supernatural realm that doesn't have any gods, some sort of godless or god-optional Eastern-style cosmology, say. But I don't recall meeting such a beast in the wild, either online or in person.

They do exist though.

We've got Buddhist atheists. They reject deities but believe in karma and rebirth.

Jain and Taoist traditions reject creator gods but accept metaphysical frameworks that would set any strict naturalist off.

Your unfamiliarity with atheists who believe in the supernatural may have more to do with your social circle than the philosophy itself. I have friends  here in Nigeria who don't believe in the religious god but believe in supernatural laws and the concept of "black magic" and stuff like "juju" (voodoo in our local Nigerian parlance).

Yes, I'm aware of those ... what one might refer to as "atheistic religions". That is why the definition of "religion" is tricky, as you have to define it without reliance on deities.

But these ideologies are "leaky". Some Buddhist sects do have gods. The ones that don't have gods, have what are effectively demigods or godlike ascended masters. I don't think a member of a Buddhist sect that rejects a "creator god" see that rejection as absolutely central to their belief system or are very doctrinaire about it, but I could be wrong. It seems to take the essential arrogance of monotheism, which definitionally has to assert a One True God, and that competing religions are Wrong, to make a person a controlling asshole about that particular topic.

Really it is down to the Abrahamic religions vs the others. Within the non-Abrahamic faiths, there's room in many of them for atheism or at least not considering belief in deities particularly important.

You're right that here in the West we mostly lack some of these non-Abrahamic influences and so that is why we are prone to think naturalism is synonymous with atheism. As I agreed -- they are not. Except in practice in many parts of the world.

The closest analog in the US to what you describe about Nigeria is Louisiana, with its voodoo influences via (IIRC) Jamaica. If you grow up there, you could more easily be atheist yet believe in black magic. More broadly, there's "ghost hunters" in popular entertainment here that captures some people's imagination. My own stepson, though an atheist, went through a phase into early adulthood of enjoying those TV shows and going to in-person "ghost hunts". Humans are funny creatures -- we can hold mutually contradictory beliefs and interests.

By the way -- I'm glad you're here. We really do need some fresh perspectives on topics here. Thanks for participating!