Some religions are secular- Atheists should oppose these too

[Cyberman]

It's really quite simple; perhaps that's why some people don't get it. Atheism is a specialised subset of scepticism, one dealing exclusively with theism. It has nothing to say about any other subject falling within the scepticism remit, except insofar that they may impinge upon theistic claims. Thus even if a person believes in the ghost of Martian Elvis nipping down in a flying saucer to conspire with Reptilian Freemason Obama about setting up the New World Order controlled from a secret base inside the hollow Earth, if s/he lacks a belief in a god they're an atheist. Note correct usage of the contraction.

[TaraJo]

It's really quite simple; perhaps that's why some people don't get it. Atheism is a specialised subset of scepticism, one dealing exclusively with theism

Even that isn't entirely accurate; people can blindly believe there is no God simply because that's how they were raised. Skepticism is about questioning everything and if you just blindly accept that God is bullshit without questioning it, you aren't really skeptic. I've always said, I'd rather have a discussion with an intelligent theist who has put intelligent thought into their beliefs than an atheist who is just blindly following what his parents told him to believe and doesn't know why he's an atheist.

[Darkstar]

Even that isn't entirely accurate; people can blindly believe there is no God simply because that's how they were raised. Skepticism is about questioning everything and if you just blindly accept that God is bullshit without questioning it, you aren't really skeptic. I've always said, I'd rather have a discussion with an intelligent theist who has put intelligent thought into their beliefs than an atheist who is just blindly following what his parents told him to believe and doesn't know why he's an atheist.

Technically, you would not necessarily need to be a skeptic about the existence of god if you were raised without religion in the first place. However, as theism is making the claim that god exists, atheism is the logical default position. So, while skepticism is technically not required for atheism, the example you used would be more accurate (and certainly more common) if the theist and atheist role were reversed. Not to question the assumption that an omnipotent and undetectable being exists is a lot harder to understand than not questioning the assumption that he doesn't.

Regardless, I take it that by skepticism you imply critical thinking skills as their foundation. If that is the case, then a lack of skepticism in an atheist would indeed make for a poor discussion. As for a theist putting intelligent thoughts into their beliefs...it can be done, but only very carefully...

[Ryantology]

You are aware that they're are atheists who believe in the supernatural, right? I've never really understood why they are doing so.....then again, I don't think they understood what they were talking about either....more content to just get high and think of themselves as enlightened than anything else.

I have to admit, that confuses me a lot. On what basis do you specifically reject gods that does not account for enough criteria to reject everything supernatural?

[Darkstar]

You are aware that they're are atheists who believe in the supernatural, right? I've never really understood why they are doing so.....then again, I don't think they understood what they were talking about either....more content to just get high and think of themselves as enlightened than anything else.

I have to admit, that confuses me a lot. On what basis do you specifically reject gods that does not account for enough criteria to reject everything supernatural?

I think this goes back to the idea of skepticism. While it is not inherently required in order to take the logical default position against god, if you have been indoctrinated it is. Skepticism is generally fueled by healthy critical thinking skills, which would also lead to the conclusion that anything supernatural was fictional; not just god. However, it is still possible for someone to believe in the supernatural and be an atheist, however unlikely.

[Angrboda]

I have to admit, that confuses me a lot. On what basis do you specifically reject gods that does not account for enough criteria to reject everything supernatural?

I think this goes back to the idea of skepticism. While it is not inherently required in order to take the logical default position against god, if you have been indoctrinated it is. Skepticism ... would also lead to the conclusion that anything supernatural was fictional; not just god. However, it is still possible for someone to believe in the supernatural and be an atheist, however unlikely.

No, the skeptical position would be to conclude that it is unproven and unknown. Concluding something is a fiction requires support of that proposition specifically. Skepticism is the withholding of belief in the absence of sufficient justification for belief.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm a Unitarian Universalist. Should atheists be against a religion that wlecomes atheists, humanists, and skeptics?

[The Grand Nudger]

Since when did atheism have prescriptive "should"s? Just has a single descriptive "doesn't" for me.

[Darkstar]

No, the skeptical position would be to conclude that it is unproven and unknown. Concluding something is a fiction requires support of that proposition specifically. Skepticism is the withholding of belief in the absence of sufficient justification for belief.

I worded that poorly. What I meant to say was that a skeptic would not believe in anything supernatirual because there would be no evidence supporting it. Not believeing something and declaring with 100% certainty that it is absolutely false are two different things, and unfortunately my wording suggested the the latter when I meant the former. Sorry for the confusion.

[Ryantology]

I worded that poorly. What I meant to say was that a skeptic would not believe in anything supernatirual because there would be no evidence supporting it. Not believeing something and declaring with 100% certainty that it is absolutely false are two different things, and unfortunately my wording suggested the the latter when I meant the former. Sorry for the confusion.

Well, in my experience, most of even the hardest core atheists are technically agnostic about the existence of gods and merely treat the matter as so unlikely to be true that they reject gods in a practical sense. And, of course, the practical reality of gods is what is really the issue between theists and atheists.

I do not know many who are absolutely, 100% certain that gods are nonexistent specifically because that implies the possession of knowledge. This includes myself.

What I'm basically asking is, how does one disbelieve in gods while accepting other forms of the supernatural as potentially valid phenomena? My atheism is based on the idea that no credible evidence exists to suggest that any supernatural being has ever been recorded to exist, nor any supernatural phenomena has ever happened. I disbelieve in gods simply because they are included under that classification.