You detail what you think the atheist perspective is, and that can be summed up as not having room or anything that is not natural... i.e. no room for the supernatural.
This is almost specifically stated when you say "
Everything the atheist perceives, and comprehends, is, as far as they are concerned, within the limits of nature / physics".
When you then ask, in the next sentence, how the atheist could have any metaphysical beliefs, the implication is quite clear, Jan, whether you recognise it or not, that you are saying the equivalent of: "atheists don't accept the supernatural, therefore how can they have any metaphysical beliefs".
Thus you have implied that you are equating metaphysics to the supernatural.
Now, you may not have intended the implication, but if not then your question at the end was a non sequitur.
It is quite natural for someone to read that question and assume that it is not a non sequitur, and thus assume the implication was intentional.
Your choice: intentional implication, or were you just asking a non sequitur?
Theism describes a person who believes in God. Nothing more, nothing less.
Apologies, I should have said that for some reason you think only a theist can have views on these things.
Is that what you think, that a theist can have such views while an atheist can not?
In a metaphysical sense what is supernatural?
I dont think metaphysics has much to say about the supernatural per se.
Metaphysics tries to answer questions of "what is existence" etc.
Supernatural is an issue of where something (is claimed to) exist.
So you might ask well ask: in terms of how to build a house, what is London?
I'm talking about atheism, not theism.
Anything outside of that is your imaginings.
So your defence is once again that if you don't explicitly say something then you didn't say it?
You are once again disowning any logical implication of what you say?
Dishonest is as dishonest does, I suppose.
When you say "the atheist can not do this, the atheist can not do that" you are implying that the non-atheist (i.e. the theist) can do those things.
If your intent is to claim that no-one, theist nor atheist, can do such things then you wouldn't have singled out atheists in the manner you did.
So please own the implication of your words.
I'm interested in the relationship between atheism and metahysics.
Again, this acknowledgement of your interest implies that you separate theism and atheism with regard metaphysics, and that you aren't of the view that no one can hold metaphysical beliefs.
Since your questioning suggests you don't think atheists can hold metaphysical beliefs, you imply that theists can.
If you're going to hold up this thread by putting words in my mouth, please refrain from further response. Thanks.
I am merely following the logical implication of what you say.
If you can not accept such implications, or do not intend them, then perhaps you should refrain from posting until you have learnt to identify the implications.
And if the implication is not one you wish to imply, change what you say.
Just out of curiosity, where in that quote to did I mention theism?
Mentioned by implication.
That is sufficient.
As someone once said: there are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete information....