Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[Simon Moon]

Why did you title this atheist vs naturalist ?

There is no versus. You can be both and I would say most are.
Supernatural is the same as being outside of natural existence.

And we tend to call that. Non-existence.
If supernatural are the set of things that don't exist, then we don't have any reason to worry about them.

Exactly.

Being an atheist does not preclude someone of having other, non god related, supernatural beliefs.

Some sects of Buddhism do not have God beliefs (thus are atheistic), but scores if other supernatural beliefs.

[Belacqua]

Why did you title this atheist vs naturalist ?

There is no versus. You can be both and I would say most are.

That's what I was going to say. Most atheists whom I've read on the Internet are certainly also naturalists.

In fact I think it would be good if people used the term more about themselves. If it's true, as we're confidently assured, that atheism is merely a lack and has no positive assertions, then it would clarify our conversations if we knew what view people hold to. 

The claim that one's position on metaphysical issues is a lack of position (i.e. atheism) is sometimes used to imply that one has nothing to defend or explain. But since thinking adult atheists reject religious claims for some reason -- usually naturalism -- such people do hold a position and do have something to justify. 

And to be clear I am not at all saying that naturalism is a bad position to hold -- only that it is a position with reasons and implications.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here we go again?

[Belacqua]

Being an atheist does not preclude someone of having  other, non god related, supernatural beliefs.

Some sects of Buddhism do not have God beliefs (thus are atheistic), but scores if other supernatural beliefs.

As far as I know, the habit of categorizing things as binary -- natural or supernatural -- is fairly modern. It may in fact not be very helpful. In part because the word "supernatural" is surprisingly hard to define.

In the Renaissance, people like Ficino who wrote about magic and astral influences used the word "occult." I actually prefer this, since it just means "hidden." They thought that there are real powers and beings in the world which are hidden from us, but that theories about them might help to explain things. Since in those days lots of things were still hidden -- not yet revealed by science -- they didn't need to talk about the supernatural. Only things that might one day be revealed. It's the more modern people who have categorized some of the things that were then hidden as natural and some as not.

As an example, alchemists theorized about an occult force called "action at a distance." They couldn't explain it but they thought it must be real. Galileo, holding to a mechanistic view of things, in which motion must be caused by one thing physically pushing another, rejected action at a distance. He ignored massive amounts of data indicating that the moon influences the tides, for example, because he didn't see how something so far away could move water. Newton, more sympathetic to alchemy, described action at a distance and called it "gravity." So now it is not occult any more, and considered natural.

[Mister Agenda]

Why did you title this atheist vs naturalist ?

There is no versus. You can be both and I would say most are.

That's what I was going to say. Most atheists whom I've read on the Internet are certainly also naturalists.

In fact I think it would be good if people used the term more about themselves. If it's true, as we're confidently assured, that atheism is merely a lack and has no positive assertions, then it would clarify our conversations if we knew what view people hold to. 

The claim that one's position on metaphysical issues is a lack of position (i.e. atheism) is sometimes used to imply that one has nothing to defend or explain. But since thinking adult atheists reject religious claims for some reason -- usually naturalism -- such people do hold a position and do have something to justify. 

And to be clear I am not at all saying that naturalism is a bad position to hold -- only that it is a position with reasons and implications.

I think that once we've established that someone is an atheist, the next step, if you're interested, is to ask what positions they DO hold. Merely being a theist doesn't say much of anything either. If you never get to, say, 'I'm a methodological naturalist', that's on the interrogator, isn't it? It's not the theist's fault if I don't care to inquire about the specifics of their theology.

Here, atheists often cover why they're an atheist in their introduction threads.

[Gwaithmir]

I see no reason to mince words. I'm an atheist, and that's that. 

[Succubus#2]

... It may in fact not be very helpful. In part because the word "supernatural" is surprisingly hard to define.

Not really, supernatural is a one word oxymoron.

[Belacqua]

I see no reason to mince words. I'm an atheist, and that's that. 

But you do have beliefs -- by which I mean things which you hold to be true about the world. And if you are a naturalist you have a metaphysical belief which can't be proved by science. 

Focusing instead on one particular belief you DON'T have -- your atheism -- means that your beliefs go unexpressed, unexplained, and possibly unexamined.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I see no reason to mince words. I'm an atheist, and that's that. 

But you do have beliefs -- by which I mean things which you hold to be true about the world. And if you are a naturalist you have a metaphysical belief which can't be proved by science. 

Focusing instead on one particular belief you DON'T have -- your atheism -- means that your beliefs go unexpressed, unexplained, and possibly unexamined.

I don’t see how. My lack of belief in gods - and focusing on that as the defining issue of atheism - doesn’t stop me from expressing, explaining or examining my beliefs regarding science, art, the value of friendship, social issues, etc.

Boru

[Belacqua]

But you do have beliefs -- by which I mean things which you hold to be true about the world. And if you are a naturalist you have a metaphysical belief which can't be proved by science. 

Focusing instead on one particular belief you DON'T have -- your atheism -- means that your beliefs go unexpressed, unexplained, and possibly unexamined.

I don’t see how. My lack of belief in gods - and focusing on that as the defining issue of atheism - doesn’t stop me from expressing, explaining or examining my beliefs regarding science, art, the value of friendship, social issues, etc.

Boru

Gwaithmir said that calling himself an atheist was enough. That expressing his positive beliefs, in addition, was "mincing words." 

I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong.