Your position on naturalism

[robvalue]

I don't know.

I would expect that you cannot "get" from one reality to another. Each is self contained. However, a being in one might be able to hold influence over another; consciously or otherwise.

Say for example that my thoughts are manifested somewhere as another reality. I'm totally unaware of this, but I'm altering it all the time by thinking different things.

Or say I write a complex computer simulation, and this also manifests and some of the elements become self aware. I wouldn't know they had become self aware, of course. I can screw around with the simulation if I want, suddenly resetting it or altering parameters. But I can't "go into it", neither can anything from this manifestation materialise in my reality.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[bennyboy]

Well, I think we have to go to the etymology: "natus" from Latin "nasci" to be born. So something natural is created or brought into being by something. In other words, the word "natural" has strong religious connotations. I'd argue that the Universe must necessarily be supernatural, since everything that is created is brought into being by the Universe or something in it, but the Universe itself CANNOT be created by something else-- or the universe and whatever created it are actually joined in a larger context.

So. . . I'm an atheist universal supernaturalist.

[paulpablo]

I don't ignore the supernatural, but I don't claim to know if it exists or not. 

When I get into a convo about ghosts, spirits or whatever I say right away that I don't believe in that sort of stuff at all and I doubt that kind of thing exists.

[Edwardo Piet]

Philosophical naturalist.

If "supernatural" is taken to mean "outside of reality" then I absolutely deny the supernatural.

If "supernatural" is taken to mean "an inaccessible part of reality" then I still deny the supernatural I just don't deny it absolutely.

[brewer]

Do I have to? I hate labels.

How about naturalphagist?

[robvalue]

Hmm, the philos are winning! I didn't expect that

[Alex K]

I'm a philosophical naturalist because I haven't yet heard a useful definition of the supernatural.

[chimp3]

Philosophical naturalist. When evidence is found of the supernatural it will more than likely wind up being a previously unexplained natural event. If evidence is found of an actual supernatural event I will become a methodological naturalist in regard to that single event. I will remain a philosophical naturalist towards all other supernatural events.

[Whateverist]

I actually find the concept of the supernatural to be far more puzzling than the concept of gods. I have no trouble giving 'gods' an alternative meaning in the natural world. But a natural world with limits is incomprehensible. As others have said, our comprehension can be limited but not the world it seeks to comprehend.

[Primordial Bisque]

Philosophical naturalist.

Muddled and grey definitions aside; there's a good reason for the complete lack of evidence for anything supernatural.