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

[Belacqua]

Well yes you are repeating yourself, and have been doing for many months, but you still need to answer the question.

I apologize if I'm being repetitive. Of the arguments I've made on this thread, which did I make before on this forum, in the last many months? Can you point me to the posts in which my arguments were refuted? 

If it's required of us that we answer the questions put to us, I hope you'll hold poly to the same standards. He has refused to answer a very reasonable question from me.

1) Let's say there is no explanation known for an event, why would we make the leap to a non~natural explanation, what makes you consider this as an alternative  ?

I am not saying we should leap to a supernatural explanation. I am saying that if we assume without evidence that there is a natural explanation we are begging the question. I apologize for repeating this, but your question indicates I wasn't clear before.

2) Let's say someone has an experience they can't explain,  how would this increase the credibility of a non~natural explanation ?

As I said before, if a person views the world as containing supernatural events, and finds an event which science can't explain, this would serve as evidence that science can't explain some things. 

For you, on the other hand, who has ruled out supernatural events, you would hold that there must be a natural explanation which hasn't been found yet.

3) Let's say a frog did exactly as you have suggested, (something that would have to happen in the confines of the natural world to be observed) at what point do you make the leap to a non~natural explanation, and why ?

I think I have answered this above. If no natural explanation is available, then there is a possibility of a supernatural one. Unless you have ruled this out a priori. 

If you can prove that nothing supernatural has ever happened, that would be interesting. But if you can only show that science hasn't found anything supernatural, then I have to repeat that science only allows natural explanations by definition.

If you simply say you believe that the non~natural could exist as a personal belief, then fine. But to ask others to consider it as a viable alternative requires more.

I am not asking anyone to do anything. It's clear that people are very attached to their metaphysical positions. I'm apparently the only one of the forum who isn't completely sure what the truth is.

---

This reductio ad absurdism to make naturalism as explanation seem absurd doesn’t work, because you have no way of ruling out a natural explanation for a hypothetical phenomenon.

Where is the reductio ad absurdism here? I don't see it.

I agree that I have no way of ruling out a natural explanation. I also think that you have no way of ruling out a supernatural one.

---

for the sake of arguing.

If you'd like to offer an argument as to why I'm wrong, I promise to read it carefully. I've never seen you formulate an argument or support any of your assertions, so that would be interesting to see.

---

Stop imagining what you think your god wants you to do or think or feel. Quell the voices inside your head.

I think you have me confused with someone else.