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

[Mr.wizard]

It doesn't matter, you can't claim to believe the supernatural is impossible and claim to believe there is evidence for the supernatural.

I didn't say the supernatural is impossible. I said I didn't believe in it.

Keep in mind the doxa on this forum: a lack of belief is not an assertion of non-existence. 

If you were to read what I said, you'd see that what I call evidence is data that is interpreted in a certain way. Interpreted in one way, by people who are open to it, all kinds of things are evidence for the supernatural. I haven't discussed how it is that *I* interpret the data.

Here is the original, don't accuse me of not reading or understanding your post, you are just trying to avoid your contradiction.
The point is you can't believe there is evidence for something that you also believe is impossible, no matter who is interpreting it. If you believe the supernatural is impossible than you have to believe that a claim of supernatural evidence is a misinterpretation of the evidence.

---

Bel's quote "I didn't say the supernatural was impossible".

Really? What the hell am I looking at? And I clearly said you claimed to BELIEVE the supernatural was impossible, and you also said you BELIEVED there was evidence for the supernatural, those two statements are in conflict. I have called you dishonest before and I am doing it again, stop moving the goal posts, state your position clearly and defend it.

I lack belief in the supernatural.

So do you believe the supernatural is possible? Whether you believe in the supernatural or whether you believe that its possible are two different questions.