Some religions are secular- Atheists should oppose these too

[Darkstar]

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.

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.

The only way that someone could believe in the supernatural and not god would be if their lack of belief in god was not due to a lack of evidence for his existence, but because they were raised atheist without developing critical thinking skills as to why it is illogical to believe in god. I think these cases would be rare, but I don't know for sure.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Hehehe, I missed this one. The narrative coming from a book which contains magical happenings that can be found nowhere we care to look in the world outside of this book (and not limited to the contents of this particular book in any way on that count) whilst being wholly consistent with other narratives of magical happenings and occurrences, whilst also providing specific testable claims with regards to archaeology and a myriad of other testable fields which have been demonstrably shown to be empty........ I think, pretty firmly establishes that in this case fiction-is-fiction (regardless of whether or not said fiction is supernatural)...lol.

I do not feel compelled or obliged to withhold judgement on vapid mythologies, personally, but that's obviously just how I handle things.

[TaraJo]

The only way that someone could believe in the supernatural and not god would be if their lack of belief in god was not due to a lack of evidence for his existence, but because they were raised atheist without developing critical thinking skills as to why it is illogical to believe in god. I think these cases would be rare, but I don't know for sure.

Yeah, that's kinda it. I mean, initially my dad brought me to church with him every Sunday but when I was 10 or so, two things changed:

1) My dad got a new job which often had him working on Sundays and

2) The church got very involved in politics and my dad, a lifelong union man, didn't want to go down there and have them tell him he's going to hell because he thinks Reagan is bullshit

Now, before I was 10, belief in god was a given. You simply didn't question it because I went to church at least once a week. After my dad kinda gave up on the church, though, I was exposed more to a world without churches or religion or anything like that and it made me think: had I been born 10 years later and my dad had already given up on church, would I have ever considered belief in god as the default?

So there are some people who are atheists because they looked at the evidence for god and found it lacking. Others are atheist because they were never really exposed to evidence for god or they weren't indocrinated into it to the point that it's the default before they learn critical thinking skills.

And as much as I, personally, think Christianity is factually incorrect, I have met some Christians who seem to have questioned their religious beliefs and are still Christians and can talk about it on an intelligent level; hell, I have one friend who is in seminary in Chicago right now. Which is cool for them, I guess. I have a standing truce with religious people: you don't preach to me and I won't insult your religion. The flip side is, when they preach to me, I get to tell them how full of shit they are.

[Cyberman]

So there are some people who are atheists because they looked at the evidence for god and found it lacking. Others are atheist because they were never really exposed to evidence for god or they weren't indocrinated into it to the point that it's the default before they learn critical thinking skills.

And then there's me, who fits neatly into both slots.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, something I forgot, and this isn't directed -at- you Apo, but you gave me the perfect oipportunity to say it. If someone wants the god proposition to be unknown or unknowable (especially as a defense of it), then they should stop telling me all about the god they're proposing. Let it be unknown and unknowable. The moment they offer any specifics they've disregarded their own defense of the concept (no matter how maleable they may personally be with regards to those specifics it becomes -at the very least in principle- knowable, otherwise their just bullshitting me).