Does Atheism = No beliefs?

No, atheism isn't a belief system - it contains no beliefs. One doesn't have to evolution as fact to get included in the club. Freedom of atheism?The only thing an atheist is free of is the belief in god. This may be liberating I suppose. As to whether it is a trap of the intellect - how would one come to know an answer to such a question? Why would one think it is true? It sounds like a question that isn't a question but an opinion that is given a modern media type spin to make it sound like journalism. We ask - you decide and all that.To answer the question: Atheism is no more necessarily an intellectual trap than a-santaism, a-domavoisim or a-fairyism. Make of that what you will.

1. I haven't ruled out a god just because I have not found a reason to believe it exists and have reason for acting as if it doesn't (or they don't).2. Being human disables you from objectively investigating something. The same positive purpose to committing to not believing in Santa or the lumineferous aether. Same here. I don't go around saying there will never be any evidence for the existence of Santa, the tooth fairy, the Garage Dragon or Yahweh or any deity like entity nor do I say there will never be a reason to consider that they do in fact exist.Right now - I've made the decision to be epistemologically consistent which means if I decide to not believe in the Garage Dragon I should treat all other entities with the same level of support in a similar fashion. I have yet to come across an argument for the existence of a god that is remotely as compelling as say, the argument for the existence of dark matter.

No - the position that there is no supernatural is called naturalism. The method seemingly used to derive Mr Jack's position here is rational empiricism (or perhaps a form of logical positivism). Not being committed to supernaturalism is just not being a supernaturalist (though that doesn't necessarily imply being a naturalist, either).Agnosticism is the position that one either can't know or simply doesn't as of yet know whether there is a god or gods (not necessarily god, but unless specified the convention is that it is god being discussed) usually justified by referring to the impossibility of deriving a metaphysical position from an epistemological one or arguing that it is circular since the epistemological position is derived from a hidden metaphysical position.One can both be agnostic and not be a supernaturalist.Edited by Modulous, : kept missing important bits.