My close friend that is an atheist thinks that it is totally a bullsh*t. He doesn't believe in this the same as he doesn't believe in God, but I don't know if all the atheist think the same or maybe this is just his own opinion...

By definition, an atheist would not believe in God, demons, possession, or exorcism.

I don't see a reason why atheism precludes demons.

What you see or not is irrelevant

While this is true, it's also irrelevant. People drop in all the time with single-sentence comments that are wrong, and my interjection of a question doesn't necessarily impact that. But someone came in and made a claim without any justification, and so it seems ripe for an intellectual challenge.

For example, one can conceive of a folk religion that has a form of ancestral worship without positing the existence of a god. Or one can accept the existence of spiritual beings without an ultimate spiritual being (or collection of "higher ranking spiritual beings" that function in the role of a god.

There are also forms of "spiritualism" that do not claim anything about a god but grant for the possibility of spirits. Specifically, there's such a thing as "spiritual atheism." The only statement that's accepted is that if spirits exist that they exist within the universe and not as some type of supreme being.

So you're right that my observation is irrelevant. But as far as I can tell, it's true, whereas the post I was responding to was false.

The issue is the distinction between disbelief in a "deity" vs. disbelief in the supernatural. If you would classify folk religions and spiritual atheism in the realm of the atheism, then you comment is technically correct, but that is pretty fringe. It is basically like a theist giving validity to Scientology as a viable form of theism. It goes against our basic rationality, but it is technically correct.

If you include spirituality in atheism (I'm not sure why you would), then a demon (defined as an "evil spirit") could exist in your world. A possessed atheist would be in a bit of trouble, since he doesn't actually believe the Church's ability to perform an exorcism.

This is an important distinction. I posit that you're actually on the wrong side of it. In particular, I challenge your concept of "the supernatural." I've already noted that there's a classification of "spiritual atheism" and I don't believe that the belief in "spirituality" necessarily implies belief in "the supernatural."

I find this claim and the example to be doubtful. I suspect you're playing an in-group/out-group sort of game here. The question of whether a "theist" gives validity to Scientology as a viable form of theism is no different from the question of whether an "atheist" gives validity to Scientology as a form of theism. The question of whether a religion is theistic or not depends on a particular definition. So we should be discussing that definition, and not who is asserting the definition.

Scientology is theistic insofar as it does assert the existence of god (even though it makes no assertions about the nature of god).

http://www.scientology.org/faq/scien...ientology.html

Therefore, Scientology is a theistic religion. As a theist, I have no problem accepting this claim. Why, as an atheist, do you have a problem with believing that I can accept this?

I would include spirituality in atheism because it's atheistic (at least in certain forms). Generic spirituality does not necessitate the existence of a god or gods. This isn't particularly complicated.

Definitions are "anything is anything" according to some but no matter what in the understanding of atheism there is no spiritual world and only the materiality as seen through our senses.

It doesn't mean that some calling themselves "atheists" don't have a different idea and who's to argue ?

Ideas change, even from moment to moment but there is no doubt that we are living in an age which one might call "scientific materialism". Whether looking for the subatomic particle or the "god gene" our milieu is compound of abstraction which abstracts to weights and measures; we are only a pound of salt according to our betters.

This delusion is not only within the science of the day but in our religious who are the co founders of the modern science. Saying "he is this" or "she is that" become meaningless when the delusional yoke of a materialist science is the net in which we are all immersed. yuk, yuk,yuk definitions my arse.

"Generic spirituality"= confabulated atheism, geez; "anything is anything"

Atheism is not materialism. There were entire threads in this very forum where atheists were very, very insistent that atheism basically implied no other particular viewpoints.

So much irony...

What describes the rejection of belief about meaning of being in the universe? Nihilistic, seemingly.

It doesn't, in the same sense that not believing in green apples or superman makes one a materialist (with no comparison beyond that).

But of course, most materialists are atheists and a fair share of atheists are materialists. While not dependent on each-other, there are intellectual intersections where the views tend to meet. The failure to distinguish the two is done by theists and atheists alike, most likely for that very reason.

Personally I'm an atheist which hold that materialism is superfluous, an unnecessary philosophy. I don't think the universe cares much for how we classify it, so I tend to conclude that classification is something we should mostly do for utility and materialism holds none. I could be wrong.

I agree with Aaron. Atheism and the belief in the supernatural are not mutually exclusive. I understand atheism as the lack of belief in a specific subset of the supernatural.