Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Theo Zacharias]

Well then what would you consider to be a confirmed supernatural phenomenon? Meaning it happened, but we don't know why. What then gives you the right to call it supernatural just because we can't yet explain it?

This question should be directed to Golbez. If you read his first post in this thread, he asserted that "there is established criteria for which we could not deny the existence of God", e.g. "do something supernatural, and make it literally spectacular". I responded that it's not that easy because what is natural and what is supernatural is actually not so clear because we don't really know what the true laws of nature is.

This is the conundrum that should actually lead many to realize that there's really no such thing as a supernatural phenomenon, rather they're all just natural phenomena that can't yet be explained.

Are you claiming that what you said above is an evidence that supernatural phenomenon does not exist?

Also, becoming an atheist after being a theist is know as deconversion, not conversion, as that would denote gaining or switching beliefs. Since all atheists do is disbelieve, saying that one converts to atheism is not aptly put.

I don't agree. You should read the context of my posting.
First, I must point out that there are atheists who belief that God does not exist. There also atheists who claim to know that God does not exist. These people are also atheists (if not then what would you call them?)
Second, if you read carefully my previous post, here was what I said: ".. in the future I found an evidence that God does not exist (which in that case I will convert to atheist) ...". So the context is if there is evidence that God does not exist. If there is the evidence, then we should believe that God does not exist (not simply just disbelieve). In fact, we should claim to know that God does not exist. So in this context, the phrase "converting to atheist" is correct.