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

[Rahn127]

I'm going to go out on a short limb and say that most rational people have issues with the word "supernatural".

Some might use the word to describe something that doesn't seem possible or a strange unexplained event.

"Did you hear that sound ? That wasn't a natural sound. I can't think of anything that could have made it. It must be some supernatural sound."

Others use the word to mean outside of the natural or beyond the natural.

In our everyday lives, we use the words inside and outside to designate a place relative to a structure.

I am inside my house. That tree is outside (of my house).
Our planet orbits inside of our solar system.
Stars larger and smaller than our Sun are outside of our solar system.

In each case, inside and outside all refer to natural existing things. Nature equals existence.

To be outside or beyond existence is the realm of non existence.

Supernatural = non existence

[Shell B]

Supernatural is not interchangeable with gods.  Gods are simply one rep in the category.  A person can be an atheist, and a supernaturalist.

Karma, fate, ghosts, esp, reincarnation, sympathetic and ritual magic etc etc etc etc.

So, if you're a dummy, you don't have to call yourself a naturalist.

I don't see any problem with the word atheist. It describes how I feel in terms of religion. If people want to know what I think beyond the theism bit, they can just ask. I'm a lot of things, but I don't really like ists and isms. They make me feel boxed in with other people, many of whom I disagree with.

[Rhizomorph13]

I prefer Theological Noncognitivist it is super pretentious sounding and allows me an aura of superiority.

[JohnMBauer]

In philosophy, naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the universe.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism...losophy%29


Atheism describes people on RELIGION's terms (it owns most of the word, literally)....the only problem I can see with describing myself as a naturalist from here on out is that some people might think I go hang out at the beach butt naked...this could be quite witty though, thinking on, so no bad really! Thoughts?

Here is how I understand it: To affirm naturalism is to affirm that the Universe is a closed system. To affirm atheism is to affirm that your world-view is without deity (godless). Affirming the former does not necessarily entail the latter.

[brewer]

(Try this a third time, but using the Quick Reply box instead. See if this works.)

To affirm naturalism is to affirm that the Universe is a closed system. To affirm atheism is to affirm that your world-view is without deity (godless). Affirming the former does not necessarily entail the latter.

Your definition of naturalism may differ from others. Some naturalists have no room for the supernatural/god. Others make room.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

[JohnMBauer]

Your definition of naturalism may differ from others. Some naturalists have no room for the supernatural/god. Others make room.

If you've made room for the supernatural, then are you actually a naturalist? As Wikipedia explains, "Naturalists maintain that nothing beyond the physical world exists" (i.e., it's a closed system). So if a thing exists, it's part of the physical world; and if it's part of the physical world, it's natural. I could be missing something but I think if you make room for the supernatural then you're not a naturalist.

Or maybe we're failing to distinguish important categories here, namely the ontological versus the epistemological (where "supernatural" describes stuff that's beyond scientific scope and understanding). In the latter case, I can see how a naturalist could make room for the supernatural.

[brewer]

Your definition of naturalism may differ from others. Some naturalists have no room for the supernatural/god. Others make room.

If you've made room for the supernatural, then are you actually a naturalist? As Wikipedia explains, "Naturalists maintain that nothing beyond the physical world exists" (i.e., it's a closed system). So if a thing exists, it's part of the physical world; and if it's part of the physical world, it's natural. I could be missing something but I think if you make room for the supernatural then you're not a naturalist.

Or maybe we're failing to distinguish important categories here, namely the ontological versus the epistemological (where "supernatural" describes stuff that's beyond scientific scope and understanding). In the latter case, I can see how a naturalist could make room for the supernatural.

Yes, you're missing something.

[The Grand Nudger]

What is and is not natural depends on who you ask.

For example - if I say that my eggplants grow better when Norah Jones sings Black Hole Sun...that's supernatural. In a natural way, lol.

[Rahn127]

Making room for the supernatural.

Length - zero
Width - zero
Height - zero

Every property and attribute of nature - zero value

Turns out, you don't have to make any room at all.

Has the same amount of room as nothing.

[Belacqua]

Making room for the supernatural.

Length - zero
Width - zero
Height - zero

Every property and attribute of nature - zero value

Turns out, you don't have to make any room at all.

Has the same amount of room as nothing.

Science works really well because it uses methodological naturalism.

It excludes supernatural explanations a priori.

Therefore it never finds anything supernatural.


Therefore there is no such thing as the supernatural.

----

This metal detector detects only metal.

I took it to the beach and it detected only metal.

Therefore there is only metal at the beach.