Atheism

[Succubus]

Ok... so you appear to be saying, that it would be incorrect to even ask for evidence or the supernatural (as many atheists do) depending on ones definition.  As I have said, I don't get too caught up on the terms supernatural vs natural. And I believe that you are the one who brought up the term supernatural.   What I would consider supernatural, would be something outside of the natural universe.  In any case, if the thing, which is being described if it can interact with the natural universe, it would seem that it can have evidence of that interaction.  Something could be seen or experienced, which that information could be transmitted to others and be evidence for what is not able to be seen.  Or there could be other evidence left behind, which could be evaluated.  If there is evidence for something, and you reason that natural forces are incapable of producing this effect, then that leaves you with either some unknown natural occurrence, or something outside of the natural which caused the effect.  Either way, you are reasoning from the evidence as to a cause.  For some if God does exist, then they would define him as part of the natural.  For them supernatural seems to mean that it a priori does not exist, and if it does exist, then it is considered natural.   As I said, I'm not too concerned with quibbling over semantics here. 

If what you call supernatural can interact with the natural world, then it doesn't seem to be a category error, to evaluate the evidence from that and reason to a conclusion.  If you have evidence and can reasonably exclude the natural, then that would leave you with the supernatural or non-natural as an explanation.  From what you are saying, you wouldn't have any evidence to begin with, and any claims would not be from evidence.

RoadRunner. You can be hard to follow at times could you focus your posts on a single topic.