Lets take a little break from politics and have us a real atheist conversation.
Personally, I’m open to the idea of the existence of supernatural phenomena, and I believe mainstream religions are actually complicated incomplete stories full of misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and half-truths.
Basically, I think that these stories are not as simple and straightforward as they seem to be to religious people. I feel like there is a lot more to them. Concluding that all these stories are just made up or came out of nowhere is kind of hard for me.
There is no supernatural. Everything is natural. I’m agnostic, so I won’t rule out something exists some people would call a god, but even if it exists, I would count it as natural.
I disagree. Supernatural is anything that transcends the laws of nature. Something that transcends the laws of nature is not natural.
To paraphrase Tim Minchin, the supernatural has either not been proved to exist or has been proved to not exist.
If you can test it - it’s natural. If you can’t test it - you can’t prove it even exists.
Inability to test something does not prove it doesn’t exist.
It doesn’t prove it, no, but it doesn’t need to. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim, so any claim should come with a way to test it. Otherwise, you can ALWAYS say, “Well, the flying spaghetti monster did it. You can’t prove me wrong.”
What are the laws of nature? You keep saying that as if it proves something but haven’t defined it. Where do the laws come from?
The laws of physics, biology… blah blah blah. I really wish we’d stop arguing about the definition, because it won’t really go anywhere. You know what I mean when I say supernatural.
Proofs start from axioms, which the ‘laws of nature’ as defined by you, are not. I don’t know what you mean, which is why I asked. You’re only revealing your own lack of critical thought here, this isn’t a gotcha like you think it is.