Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[polymath257]

And I explained twice.
Put the shovel down.

You have asserted, twice, that the supernatural is impossible.

You appear to support this with a video which doesn't address the issue at all.

If you are happy making unsupported assertions and avoiding the burden of proof, I'll stop asking.

OK, let me address this. At one point you asked if it is possible for something to act in a way that is against its 'nature'.

The problem is in how you define the 'nature' of a thing. You left that undefined and you have made a number of bold assertions, for example, that the nature of frogs is not to sing operas.

But, my understanding of the nature of a thing is the collection of ways it can act. So, if a frog is singing, it is in the nature of that frog to sing.

It is the way things act that constitutes the basic observations. And those observations are the raw material for the scientific method.

But, with this understanding, there is no way for something to act against its nature: if it is doing something, that activity is in its nature.

So, in that sense, a supernatural is impossible.

Now, if you disagree with my definition of 'natural', then please supply an alternative and we shall see if it is useful and what conclusions it leads to.