Even "supernatural" can be problematic as a concept; one person's supernatural is another's natural. Richard Carrier suggests that naturalists should avoid the natural/supernatural dichotomy. Naturalists effectively believe only in things that have material basis. So "consciousness" is ok as it depends on brain processing and would end with its cessation. However whether or not atheism necessarily extends to disbelieving in all things that don't have some material basis is another thing. Alex
Not sure about that :-) I can understand a person, totally unaware of an idea, being without belief about it. However it seems unrealistic to suggest that having been exposed to the god idea, especially when so pervasively, that a person can still claim to be without any corresponding beliefs even if he or she seeks to disbelieve in god. The passionate postings to this forum seem to suggest otherwise. Alex
This atheism definition is a semantic black hole where pedants come to die. The amount of pointless noise it generates is staggering. It is as stated without a belief. For lack of evidence, the null hypothesis stands. That's all it is. Adding any more to it and it ceases to be atheism and it becomes yet another ideology. This explains it neatly -
If you want to add meaning to it, invent another word. Leave atheism be.
Religion means link to the past - Buddhism is a religion in the sense that it is a traditionally based view of the nature of the universe on an absolute scale. It does not claim a centralized, creator deity, per se.
It is a religion of people who don't believe in god. The same can be said for communists.