What philosophical evidence is there against believing in non-physical entities?

[Panatheist]

The attribution of the experience to an altered state?  I specifically used the term altered state to describe very unusual perceptual phenomena and said that anything I am experiencing subjectively including such perceptual phenomena must have a physical correlation to a state in the brain.

Which is an awful lot of wiggle room for an altered state.  I see things in novel ways, ways that I don't normally see the them, all the time. Is this an altered state, do you feel that I would be justified in claiming that I am experiencing altered states?

I didn't say what brain state or that I knew what brain state, just that there has to be a correlate in the brain to anything I am aware of.  I don't know what else could be said about that or what an atheist who doesn't believe in the supernatural could disagree with about that, honestly.

To say that there has to be a nueral correlate is to say nothing at all (between the two of us, anyway), and you've said a great deal more than just that, cmon now.  

And I'm still not sure why day dreams are being treated differently in this discussion even though they actually fit the definition you have recently given.

Were you daydreaming?

Don't see where I'm saying there is more to any form of awareness than a neural correlate, physical explanations, period.

Basically we are arguing over words, whether altered state is an appropriate term for my experience, but you haven't used the term consistently: that's my point in mentioning that day dreams qualify as per your definition.

Call it a trippy experience rather than an altered state, whatever you prefer. My point to the OP is that one can experience all sorts of strange mental phenomena without seeking a supernatural explanation.