Do you have the right to be an atheist?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I think you misunderstood me.I didn't mean that you assume the existence of the aliens that made this discovery.
I meant that your argument assumed that humans knew about and had a clear idea of the discovery these aliens made.Which would make it natural because we can now explain it according to our scientific knowledge.
But since we don't,we can't.
I understand your frustration,it i were you i would get frustrated too.

---

@Simon Moon,


Supernatural: " attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. "

I don't know what you just did there but you definitely made a logically incorrect assumption.
According to this definition, 
The inability to explain something does make it supernatural, by default.

If it doesn't,there is something wrong with the definition,not with my argument.

Yeah, you're here just to yank everyone's chain, right?


Yes, that is the definition of supernatural alright.

But who says that if teleportation were to occur in my presence, I would "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature"?

I might just say, "That was weird. I wonder what the explanation is?". 

Again, just because something is unexplained, does not mean that it is supernatural. It just means that it is unexplained. 

It doesn't matter what you might just say now does it.
Furthermore the theoretical aspect of teleportation is completely natural the only supernatural aspect of teleportation is the practicality.
Therefore i do not believe teleportation is purely supernatural.
As i said before the reason of me using teleportation and invisibility was so that they would make others better understand the point i was trying to get across.

You're saying that just because something is unexplained that doesn't make it supernatural.
I'm saying that just because something is unexplained that does make it supernatural.

The basis for my conclusion is the very definition of supernatural.
What is the basis for your conclusion?

---

According to logic i can ignore the other part.Because those two parts were connected by a "or" not a "and".Therefore i just have to prove atleast one of the part,not both.

The idea that the universe chugged along for billions of years obeying the laws of nature, but has to be considered supernatural until life evolved with the ability to explain it is fucking absurd. I think you should go look up the word obtuse.

Ah,you're making a few wrong assumptions.
I'm not saying that the universe has to be considered supernatural with respect to universe itself.
Everything is natural with respect to the universe(unless some phenomenon where to take place for the first time on the universe,which would then make the information available that the said phenomenon would be possible and completely natural at time t(present time)but as of time t-n it would make the phenomenon supernatural).

I looked up the word obtuse,it says: annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
I agree with my insensitivity but i'm not sure if i'm slow to understand.Up until now my life experience have provided me with many examples that others(most of the others)are just too slow.Of course i could be wrong.