Of you atheists, who rejects the possibility of anything supernatural and why, logically?

Question

I asked something similar not long ago but realized its shortcomings. To define 'God' is necessary in discussions about these beliefs. So now I'm going to more effectively get at what's bothering me.

An atheist rejects the possibility of God, but not necessarily the supernatural. Still, many atheists reject the possibility of the supernatural as well. Why is this, logically? A lack of evidence does not mean anything, especially considering the fact that the nature of the supernatural is to transcend the physical world that we perceive. You (we) use this same argument against theists, though we also criticize their individual ideas of the supernatural and of God. I understand the logical problems of Christianity, but that is not what I'm questioning right now. Just: for those of you who do reject the possibility of the supernatural, what is your logical reason for this?

I won't be responding to answers for a while, so if you're really interested in my response to your answers, tell me and I'll get back to you several hours from now.

Unforeseen circumstances allow me to respond now. Joy...

Kenyai: Your answer is decent in analysis of our perceptions of the supernatural, but you say we should assume certain things. Why? What does it matter if we allow for their possibility?

Aurora: To accept that the supernatural exists only gives you a limited path to limited gods, and even then they aren't necessary. I'm not advocating belief in the supernatural - I'm advocating uncertainty. Do you think that the sum experiences of your small sphere of friends, including yourself, equals the sum of experiences of every living creature? I hope not. Of course, no one can prove to you that his personal experience is proof in itself, and you wouldn't have to even accept that he had the experience. Again, not saying we should believe, just be uncertain.

Ms. Taurus: This may or may not answer my question... I'm not sure.

hairypotto: Good point, but doesn't quite seem to answer it.

Kenshin: Correct about what you'd expect if it does not exist - no evidence. However, you need to review your logic. No evidence does not mean it does not exist. I could talk about the fact that there have been many species of which we had no proof until we found them, but these are physical things - like leprechauns, dragons, and unicorns would be. This example is horrible for my argument. However, as soon as I talk about the supernatural, I'm talking about something beyond what any of us can perceive. It's something outside of our realm of logical or scientific proving or disproving. You have no reason to believe it exists, but that in itself does not mean it does not exist. You can't be 100% certain about this.

Jim C: I'm aware that debating is pointless. I'm trying to point out where the logic of a true atheist fails. (I'm agnostic.)

Answerer after Jim C, I can't see your name, so that's your title: your examples are irrelevant to my question. I'm asking you to prove that nothing supernatural exists, basically.

You say that so and so defines atheism, but I have to disagree. What would you call a person who completely denies the possibility of gods? If you accept that it's possible, you're still agnostic, but you're deceiving yourself because you're trying to measure likelihood of something that can neither be proven nor disproven.

Um, your final point is the worst of all. It's the definition. Once again, I'm not claiming that the supernatural exists - just that it might. Why? To point out logical flaws.

NH Baritone: I don't. I also don't deny the possibility that the supernatural exists. I'm not trying to label what we don't understand as unable to be explained by science. I'm saying that maybe, just maybe, something we can't understand through science exists: the supernatural, not of this world

Continuing right from above, you might say that those things don't exist if they don't exist in our realm. But our realm might not be all of "existence." I believe you get my point regardless of how you define existence.

punch: Yes, but these things are physical. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that something exists which transcends our physical world and cannot be perceived. I don't believe one way or the other - all I am certain of is that we uncertain. I am not so arrogant to think that our universe is all there is.

Catherine E: All right, you're agnostic, and as I've said to everyone else, I'm not trying to prove the supernatural exists. Just throwing the possibility out there to attract the illogical ones.

I agree that science and reason are the best way we have to understand the world around us, but it inevitably fails when you talk about things like this.

U-98: Do you honestly think I don't know all of that? The ONLY THING I'M TRYING TO DO is point out where atheism fails in terms of logic. If you want to reject that aspect of logic as inconvenient in terms of being certain and in terms of living your life, then go ahead. But don't profess to use impeccable logic if you assert that these things are absolutely impossible.

To continue the above briefly, I'm using the idea of the FSM against both sides. Both find it silly, but the atheists use it to make a point. Now I'm making that same point to the atheists.

scienceguy888: Doesn't answer the question.

Maybe the problem for a few people is my choice in terms. Before I used God, now I'm using supernatural... I'm talking about things outside of the world we perceive.

Is the argument pointless? There is no conclusion besides uncertainty, so in that way, yes. However, I'm examining the arguments themselves for logical problems. As U-98 pointed out, you just can't logically disprove the possibility of these things. I hope we can understand that.

Answer 1

Atheism is to broad of a brush for you to paint your picture with.
Here is how Stats Canada breaks Christianity down
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- -- -- Catholic
-- -- -- -- Other Catholic
-- -- -- -- Polish National Catholic Church
-- -- -- -- Roman Catholic
-- -- -- -- Ukrainian Catholic

-- -- -- Protestant
-- -- -- -- Adventist
-- -- -- -- Anglican
-- -- -- -- Apostolic Christian
-- -- -- -- Associated Gospel
-- -- -- -- Baptist
-- -- -- -- Brethren in Christ
-- -- -- -- Canadian Reformed Church
-- -- -- -- Charismatic Renewal
-- -- -- -- Christadelphian
-- -- -- -- Christian and Missionary Alliance
-- -- -- -- Christian Assembly
-- -- -- -- Christian Congregation
-- -- -- -- Christian, n.o.s.
-- -- -- -- Christian Reformed
-- -- -- -- Church of God
-- -- -- -- Church of Latter Day Saints
-- -- -- -- Church of the Nazarene
-- -- -- -- Churches of Christ, Disciples
-- -- -- -- Dutch Reformed Church
-- -- -- -- Evangelical
-- -- -- -- Evangelical Free Church
-- -- -- -- Free Methodist
-- -- -- -- Hutterite
-- -- -- -- Interdenominational
-- -- -- -- Jehovah's Witnesses
-- -- -- -- Lutheran
-- -- -- -- Mennonite
-- -- -- -- Methodist Episcopal
-- -- -- -- Methodist, n.o.s.
-- -- -- -- Mission Convent
-- -- -- -- Mission de l'Esprit Saint
-- -- -- -- Missionary Church
-- -- -- -- Moravian
-- -- -- -- New Apostolic
-- -- -- -- New Church
-- -- -- -- Non-denominational
-- -- -- -- Orthodox Doukhobors
-- -- -- -- Other Christian
-- -- -- -- Other Reformed
-- -- -- -- Pentecostal
-- -- -- -- People's Church
-- -- -- -- Plymouth Brethren
-- -- -- -- Presbyterian
-- -- -- -- Protestant, n.o.s.
-- -- -- -- Quakers
-- -- -- -- Reformed Church of America
-- -- -- -- Reformed Doukhobors
-- -- -- -- Reorganized Church of Latter Saints
-- -- -- -- Salvation Army
-- -- -- -- Spiritualist
-- -- -- -- Standard Church
-- -- -- -- Unitarian
-- -- -- -- United Church
-- -- -- -- Wesleyan
-- -- -- -- Worldwide Church of God

-- -- -- Orthodox
-- -- -- -- Antiochian Orthodox Christian
-- -- -- -- Armenian Orthodox
-- -- -- -- Coptic Orthodox
-- -- -- -- Greek Orthodox
-- -- -- -- Orthodox, n.o.s.
-- -- -- -- Romanian Orthodox
-- -- -- -- Russian Orthodox
-- -- -- -- Serbian Orthodox
-- -- -- -- Ukrainian Orthodox
_____________________
Ok now atheism is not a religion, it is simply a lack of belief in a God or Gods, but this is how Stats. Can. breaks it down.
----------------
Not affiliated with a religious or para-religious group
-- -- -- Agnostic
-- -- -- Atheist
-- -- -- Free Thinker
-- -- -- Humanist
-- -- -- No religion
-- -- -- Other, non-religious
-- -- -- Other, not elsewhere stated

There is no space to discuss the existentialists, the nihilists, the stoics or fatalists.
It is even less worthwhile to discuss all the mixes and cross seeding among the different philosophies that people adopt.

To come at it from a simple way and just give you the logic of rejecting claims that have no evidence you must realize that the burden is to prove the claim. It is not the burden to prove the negative, because the only logical disproof of a negative is solid evidence.
Let us try taking the opposite approach. There are always at least three of four suns in the sky but three of them are supernatural and invisible. Now you prove that claim wrong.

If I adopt the course of trying to prove dramatic and illogical claims that rely on illogical statements wrong of course I can not do it.
That is the whole point of Russel's Teapot, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster and all of their ancestors going back at least 2500 years.

Try looking up Occam's Razor, or Negative Proofs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

Answer 2

Why would you assume there is any transcendent world if there is no mechanism for perceiving it? What possible reason, other than fantasy or delusion, do you have for thinking that there is anything beyond what exists in this universe?

We may not be able to perceive everything yet. As a matter of fact, scientists say that most of the universe is made up of dark matter, which cannot be detected directly. However, its gravity can be detected, and its effects on the galaxies, on light, and on the expansion of the universe is evident. My point is that to suggest that something is supernatural, but has an impact on the universe, is patently absurd. Just because we do not yet understand something doesn't mean that it is supernatural. It only means we have limited knowledge and detection equipment.

(Remember, until 150 years ago, we didn't know that bacteria existed. Now we count them, classify them, and booth breed and slaughter them.)

Answer 3

I disagree. A lack of evidence does indeed mean something: It means there's no evidence.

Consider subatomic particles. Nobody has ever seen one, not even the physicists who study them. But we know they exist because we can observe their effects on their surroundings.

Consider shadows. They're insubstantial, nevertheless they exist and they are evidence that solid objects exist. If I had no other evidence of my own existence, my shadow would indicate that SOMEthing was sitting here, occupying this space at this time.

I also disagree with "an atheist rejects the possibility of god." This is not the definition of atheism. Atheism means lack of belief in god, nothing more nor less. This is not the same as saying that god is impossible. Some kind of deity may exist; it's "possible" in the sense that anything is possible. Atheists simply don't believe that it's likely, especially since there's no evidence.

I also disagree with your claim that "the nature of the supernatural is to transcend the physical world that we perceive." Uh-huh. Sez who, and what do they have to back up this claim?

Answer 4

Right now I reject the supernatural, because I have never seen any convincing evidence that anything supernatural exists. If and when I'm presented with legitimate evidence, then I will examine it, and determine whether or not I think it's real. I can't just go on with my life assuming that something for which there is no evidence exists...because then I would have to assume that anything the imagination can come up with exists until it's proven NOT to exist. That's not logical to me. It's more logical to NOT believe in something until you're presented with convincing evidence of it's existence. I'm not going to say that I know with 100% certainty that the supernatural doesn't exist, but I have no reason whatsoever to believe that it does right now.

Answer 5

If a thing has physical existence and physical effects, then it's part of the natural universe and can be described by science (whether it has been described yet or not). If a thing has no effect on the physical world and cannot be observed then there's no way to establish whether it exists or not, and, by the way, no practical reason to ask.

Thus, the question "Does supernatural thing X exist?" is at best unanswerable and irrelevant to our lives. Some would say it's a logical contradiction.

Answer 6

Atheism isn't a single unified body of opinion. Most people on R&S describing themselves as atheists are actually metaphysically naturalistic atheists who are also scientific realists and often also seem to have a lot of confidence in the omnicompetence of science. That's a particular variety of atheism and there are others. For instance, as i never cease to drone on about, the Jain religion is powerfully and assertively atheist but also believes strongly in the supernatural, including such things as a separate soul and body, demons and other spiritual beings and reincarnation. In recent centuries, Western atheism has tended to be sceptical about the supernatural, but not all atheists are like that. For instance, some people don't believe in God but do believe in an afterlife, reincarnation or psychic abilities, even in European-derived cultural milieux.

Answer 7

" A lack of evidence does not mean anything, especially considering the fact that the nature of the supernatural is to transcend the physical world that we perceive"

No, it means quite a lot! No evidence is what you would EXPECT if it does not exist.

As of this point the supernatural, god, leprechauns, etc. have more in common with a nonexistent concept or mythology than they do with something that does exist.

I have NO REASON to believe any of it exsits. Therefore I don't.

Answer 8

Some might claim that "what you consider supernatural, science may one day show to be natural." In other words, they might allow the physical universe to "adopt" these things whenever there is physical or trustworthy testimonial evidence for them. In that sense, eventually, nothing should be left in the supernatural category once everything is explained.

But to be honest, as a skeptic, I'm not sure if we can ever know that we have successfully explained everything. All we can do is assume so until we encounter an anomoly.

Answer 9

Atheists do not believe in the supernatural at all. To accept anything supernatural would open the door to belief in gods. I say that a lack of evidence is everything. Why believe in the supernatural when there is no proof of it whatsoever? That speaks volumes. I've never experienced contact with anything supernatural, no one I know has, so why believe in it?

Answer 10

I have no belief in god and I have no belief in the supernatural. In many cases, what was thought as supernatural had very natural responses. Sometimes it just takes a little science.

I don't think |our universe is all there is, I believe there are other universes and other dimensions. I believe we will learn to explain and prove them in the future. I believe they are natural occurrences. I don't believe that there is anything Unnatural. There are things that cannot be explained yet. that's all.