The fact that you have not found evidence of the supernatural isn't conclusive proof that it does not exist. — Elric

The ‘supernatural’ cannot be proven as it falls outside of natural sciences.

Atheist is a term coined by religious folk. Atheist movements have happened to better education and healthcare.

My understanding of the term atheist is the point of view that nothing supernatural exists, most particularly a deity, and this is expressed as an absolute. — Elric

This misunderstanding – caricature – is "assinine". :roll:

The fact that you have not found evidence of the supernatural isn't conclusive proof that it does not exist.

Strawman.

If feelings are a valid tool to perceive factual reality.

"Feelings" are not sufficient. (Moot.)

My understanding of the term atheist is the point of view that nothing supernatural exists, most particularly a deity, and this is expressed as an absolute. — Elric

The definition of "atheism" varies depending on what one is trying to convey. Some use a labeling system wherein "atheism" is the affirmative denial of gods, "theism" is the affirmation of at least one god, and "agnosticism" is no affirmation whatsoever. Others use a two-dimensional labeling system wherein one is plotted on a graph, so to speak, in relation to an axis representing "agnosticism/gnosticism" and the other axis representing "atheism/theism": this typically separates more clearly the claims of "knowledge" from those of "belief". In the former labeling system, you would be more or less correct: an atheism would be affirming there are no gods and not merely lacking a belief. However, if the latter labeling system is being utilized then you would be incorrect: an "agnostic atheist" does not affirm there are no gods, they simply lack a belief in any gods.

Some will claim that every person is an atheist in their own regards, to some particular subset of gods, to more clearly explicate the difference between "lacking a belief" and "believing".

To be quite frank, this is a hot topic, eternal semantical feud, amongst many out there in the community. For me, I worry more about the underlying meaning the person I am conversing with is trying to convey. For me, I would fit more with the "agnostic atheist" label than "atheist" (in regard to its one-dimensional usage). But if one were to insist that, semantically, "atheism" is the expression of the affirmation of no gods, then I simply am "agnostic".

I would also like to emphasize that, even if one is expressing the affirmation of no gods, they are not necessarily positing it as an absolute. Not all epistemologies allow for "absolutes" and, therefore, they may be claiming to "know" there are no gods while retaining that it is not an absolute judgment.

Moreover, "atheism" does not entail the denial of the "supernatural" nor "metaphysical", it is simply either the affirmative denial of gods or the lack of belief in all gods or the lack of belief in a particular subset of gods (again, depends on whom you are speaking to).

My perspective is that both points of view are asinine, as neither can be proved. The fact that you have not found evidence of the supernatural isn't conclusive proof that it does not exist.

I think that the views you are attacking are "gnostic" absolute claims either way: which are not the only two options. I think that we tend to default to something "does not exist" until we have proof that it does. So, although, yes, simply lacking any evidence whatsoever does not necessitate that supernaturalism is false, it would entail that we shouldn't belief it is true.

If feelings are a valid tool to perceive factual reality, and you FEEL that the supernatural exists, then it would be equally true that it does NOT exist, because someone else FEELS that it does not.

I think I would need further elaboration on what you mean here. What are "feelings"? Sensations? It seems as though you are trying to convey that "feeling" either way is not proof (either way), which I would agree with. I think the problem is that one cannot be in a middle space between holding a "belief" and "not believing". Sure, we could distinguish "disbelief" as the negative affirmation and "not believing" as merely the lack thereof, but nevertheless there is no truly neutral space here: either you belief something, or you don't.

The fact that you have not found evidence of the supernatural isn't conclusive proof that it does not exist. — Elric

We could make this argument for any imagined thing, including elves, leprechauns, and dragons.

It is incumbent upon the claimant to both define and show evidence for (based upon the definition) the state-of-affairs that is being asserted. If you want to assert that "supernatural" or "gods" exists, then it is incumbent upon you to define "supernatural" or "god" and then provide some evidence that it exists. Until you do that, then what am I suppose to do with your claim? How would it be useful to me to believe it?

Because I haven't found any use in believing that the supernatural or gods exist, then I don't.

:up:

We could make this argument for any imagined thing, including elves, leprechauns, and dragons. — Harry Hindu

These are no gods though. Dragons could in principle be found in the Earthly domain. God(s) exist outside of this domain, so their existence can't be proved. Dawkins's claim that he's 99.9% sure that god(s) don't exist is a ridiculous, if not ludicrous claim. You can't assign a probability to the existence of god(s) if they exist.

I think the issue most people have with such statements is that ‘this domain’ is ‘existence’ and that there is no ‘outside’. At best it is not something we can talk about because it is beyond our comprehension and even pretending to talk about it here (like this) is contrary.

Anything might be possible. We don’t seem to know and work with the tiny window we have and that window is ‘existence’.

A percentage does not mean probability. He was just making clear that he is not all knowing just like they say bleach kills 99.9% of bacteria dead - because they cannot possibly test it on ALL bacteria but in reality it almost certainly does kill literally 100% of bacteria.

I think the issue most people have with such statements is that ‘this domain’ is ‘existence’ and that there is no ‘outside’. — I like sushi

The point is that many people think there is an extramundane realm. And that realm can give meaning to our existence, which without that outerwordly region, called heaven, and God in it, would be meaningless and empty. We would be what science describes only. Like Dawkins puts it: "vessels of selfish genes or memes, programmed to pass them on", or, like I read once, products of chance events, evolving into ensembles or configurations of dead particles. A rather depressing view. I think Dawkins and other new atheists, can't really understand the meaning God can give to life.

Because I haven't found any use in believing that the supernatural or gods exist, then I don't. — Harry Hindu

What could be the use, apart from moral or closing gaps? Do you understand why people believe?

My perspective is that both points of view are asinine, as neither can be proved. — Elric

What are the two points of view? I only see one here ...

someone else FEELS that it does not. — Elric

You cannot feel something that does not exist neither you can feel that something does not exist. For example, you cannot feel a wind that isn't blowing.

As for poofs, you are right, you cannot prove either that God exists or that God doesn't exist, esp. the second. How can I prove that God does not exist if it does not exist (for me)? That would be totally absurd.

You can only experience God, but this is personal. Even if there are millions of people with such an experience, that could be called a common experience, but it would be different for each person, i.e. personal.

God(s) exist outside of this domain, so their existence can't be proved. — Haglund

Outside what domain, and "outside" in what way? It certainly can't be outside causality because events outside this domain affect what is in this domain and vice versa, so we should be able to prove their existence just like we can prove the identity of a criminal given the effects they leave at the crime scene (fingerprints, DNA, etc). It doesn't make any sense to say that it is outside this domain while at the same time asserting that there is a causal relationship between the outside and inside yet the outside can't be proven.

What could be the use, apart from moral or closing gaps? Do you understand why people believe? — Haglund

Sure. I was once a believer. When I question my former fellow believers most ask, "well what happens after we die?", so it seems like believing is more of a delusion to aleviate the suffering of knowing you will die and that your friends and family no longer exist for you to meet after death.

Being outside the secular domain by definition means a domain with no causal contact, unless they can influence the chances of quantum mechanics. That's the only acausal way to interfere.

Dawkins claims to be 99.9% certain that no gods exist. Then what about the 0.01%? To be certain that if they exist he didn't say he was sure 100%? So he can always say "You see? I told you! I was right! I said there was a chance!"

Do you understand why people believe? — Haglund

People make believe – tell themselves consoling stories (myths) – when they do not know; it is cognitively easier to pretend to know (à la placebo-effect) than to accept the unknown (or unknowable). In other words, "belief" seems a developmental and atavistic vestige of childhood magical thinking in adults. People also believe because they are socialized to believe that "belief" is more "socially acceptable" and more "moral" than to not believe. Raised and educated Roman Catholic, this is how I understand (in a nutshell) "why people believe" after four-plus decades as an unbeliever, freethinker and reader of comparative religion.

What could be the use, apart from moral or closing gaps? Do you understand why people believe?
— Haglund
Sure. I was once a believer. When I question my former fellow believers most ask, "well what happens after we die?", so it seems like believing is more of a delusion to aleviate the suffering of knowing you will die and that your friends and family no longer exist for you to meet after death — Harry Hindu

You think an afterlife is the reason for believing? Then you don't understand the reason at all.

You don't understand the reason for believing. The why is not what you mention.

Being outside the secular domain by definition means a domain with no causal contact, unless they can influence the chances of quantum mechanics. That's the only acausal way to interfere. — Haglund

It is claimed that god created the universe and that our actions influence his final judgement. Those are causal relationships. As such, there should be evidence that was left for use to be able to show that god exists and created the universe. Where is that evidence?

You think an afterlife is the reason for believing? Then you don't understand the reason at all. — Haglund

You asked if I understand why people believe. I told you that I once was a believer and that I have spoken to other believers and what they have said. Are you then saying that none of us are, or were, actually believers - as in only you have true sight into what god wants us to believe?

I'm still waiting on you to define "god".

It is claimed that god created the universe and that our actions influence his final judgement — Harry Hindu

Why should they judge in the first place? They might frown when they us toiling along maybe...

Are you then saying that none of us are, or were, actually believers — Harry Hindu

No. I just said you were believing for the wrong reasons. Afterlife, morals, or gods of gaps.

Dawkins claims to be 99.9% certain that no gods exist. Then what about the 0.01%? To be certain that if they exist he didn't say he was sure 100%? So he can always say "You see? I told you! I was right! I said there was a chance!" — Haglund

Atheism is often described as the position that there is insufficient evidence for justifying belief in gods.
I am also 99.9% convinced that no gods exist but if I said I was 100% convinced then I would be as dogmatic as the pope. The 0.1% difference of conviction between Dawkins and the pope makes Dawkins the better thinker in my opinion.
Although in truth, I have no idea how many individual popes did or do 100% believe in the christian/catholic god.

I'm still waiting on you to define "god". — Harry Hindu

Forgot that one! Gods are the entities that, for whatever reason, created the universe in which life develops.

Telling me that I am wrong doesn't answer the questions I have posed. Unless you have something with more substance then I'm done here.

insufficient evidence — universeness

You call the universe insufficient proof?

In other words, there is a causal relation, therefore there should be evidence of your claim. Where is the evidence for your claim?

Yes.

What better proof is there? They won't show themselves. Yet...

In other words, there is a causal relation, therefore there should be evidence of your claim. Where is the evidence for your claim? — Harry Hindu

What causal relation?

Telling me that I am wrong doesn't answer the questions I have posed. Unless you have something with more substance then I'm done here. — Harry Hindu

Sorry, I didn't mean to say you were wrong, but the reasons you gave are just not my reasons. I just don't think science alone offers meaning or reason for life.

Clearly, you do not understand why you believe (or my understanding of why people like you believe).

i.e. my understanding of why people like you believe — 180 Proof

Your understanding. Good observation. But people like you don't (can't) really understand because your thinking obeys the imperative.

People make believe – tell themselves consoling stories (myths) – when they do not know; it is cognitively easier to pretend to know (à la placebo-effect) than to accept the unknown (or unknowable). In other words, "belief" seems a developmental and atavistic vestige of childhood magical thinking in adults. People also believe because they are socialized to believe that "belief" is more "socially acceptable" and more "moral" than to not believe. Raise and educated a Roman Catholic, this is how I understand (in a nutshell) "why people believe" after four-plus decades as an unbeliever, freethinker and reader of comparative religion. — 180 Proof

That is a pretty good explanation. People think being good means being religious.