No, the supernatural is not of nature, while a mind and a computer ARE of nature. Any more red herrings, sam?
What? If that technology existed why would it be "supernatural"? Ok. Again.... belief: None of which apply to atheism. Which is a lack of belief. We make no positive assertion that god(s) do not exist. We do not BELIEVE in god(s). Get it? DO NOT believe. The opposite of believe. To NOT believe. Non believers. Atheists. Without gods. No BELIEF. Can the density of certain posters be measured in terms of neutron star matter? I think so.
And the fact that you derailed your own thread with silly questions is somehow input? Pot. Kettle. Noir.
Ummm... no. Do you not experience gravity sam? Is it's behavior not explaned in exquisite precision by general relativity? Are you asking for the ultimate "what is it"? sam? If that's the case, then you can play semantics to put anything you wish in the realm of the "supernatural". But what is an atom, really??? Don't know. Must be supernatural. Wrong. It exists and has a natural, explainable, predictable behavior.
Getting back to the discussion, what is the correct term for one who does not believe in God? Since a****** is a bad word?
Please see previous posts in this thread. According to some atheists, referring to a****** as **believers is a derogatory term, equivalent to referring to dark skinned people as niggers.
So what? According to most atheists, atheist, non believer, free thinker, are all just fine. I'm sure some atheists think that calimari tastes good too. Idiots.
Simply put, because we are able to conceive that there might be something outside of the system. Of course, while being within the system, we don't know what it would be like to be outside of it. But if we can conceive of the system, then there's room for the speculation that there might be something outside of it. As long as we are within the system, we can, at best, come up with pointers or approximations to what might be outside of the system; and those pointers or approximations will necessarily reflect how we think of the system we're in. Because one couldn't meaningfully speak of that which is outside of the system, one could only point at it, speculate about it. And such pointing and speculating doesn't make for very persuasive much less for or adequate communication. I suppose one could know that only once one would be aware of it. Because opinion, thinking are part of this system we are currently in. That might be an approximation of what is called "nirvana" in Buddhism.