They don't have any control over the sun either.

But of course those people never consider the possibility that the faith they're in could be the wrong one! Maybe the Jains are the ones that are right and all you meat eaters are doomed.

I would. Anyone that actually fits the definition of an athiest wouldn't believe in supernatural things, like souls, angels, gods, unicorns, fairies, jesus or the elves of Rivendell.

And what do you mean, "not ... the same idea" of what a soul is. The ONLY way two people can discuss something is for both to understand what exactly the words you are using mean. If you can change the definitions of words on a whimsy, then you aren't communicating. You're just making noise at each other. The religious are especially guilty of changing their definitions as it suits them. As soon as you shoot down their concept, they immediately change it to something with lots of meaningless, vague and misused words to sound mysterious or deep.

^I wouldn't say that because you can't speak for all atheists. And how would you know if all atheists don't believe in "supernatural things" like maybe aliens. I'm not one to doubt that there's life somewhere else out there, look how incredibly massive space is, how many stars are in the sky, etc. And a soul doesn't have to be defined by the idea of this ghost image of yourself as if it will magically leave your body when you die.

Atheism isn't the disbelief in anything supernatural it's just the belief that there are no deities.

Don't sweat it. Science itself relies on the supernatural as its basis. According to science, matter/energy cannot be created. And one of the most basic principals of science is the one of cause and effect. In order for there to be matter and energy there must be a cause for it.

Since these two laws contradict each other, matter and energy exist supernaturally......by definition.

You and I have a different definition of science.

My understanding of what science means could basically be stated as "the quest for better understanding." You statement in no way fits that definition. Within my understanding of what science is, there is no such thing as "supernatural". There are things, however, that we don't understand, or have limited knowledge of. And pretty much everything could be better understood, for that matter.

Per Merriam-Webster, the definition of SCIENCE:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
2b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
3b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

Yes, there are lots of definitions of science. In this discussion, I go by 3a&b. It is totally fair game I suppose for you to go by definition 1 as you say you are doing.

Maybe if I went by #2 and Heathen by #3 and my wife by #4 (she loves to cook and is watching a cooking show right now), we could all be happy and say yes, science does indeed answer everything and have the ability to ascribe meaning to the bigger "why"questions that the physical sciences (#3) cannot address.

continued....

That is what I am talking about is the physical realm and observing/measuring by the scientific method (#3). While I am not a physicist or molecular microbiologist nor as smart as Stephen Hawkin or Heathen, I am a degreed engineer (electrical & computer) and have studied quite a bit of physics, material science, chemistry, thermodynamics, etc. And I have studied a lot of math (probability is probably the most applicable here). I know enough to know how the scientific method works.

And, my position is that science by its own laws cannot explain where the very stuff it measures comes from. So, by definition that stuff needs to come into existence supernaturally.

Wrong Wrong Wrong as usual. The whole first cause argument is bull-oney. Something can just have always existed. Mass / energy cannot be created or destroyed, just changed in form. Law of conservation of mass/energy. Therefore, nothing made it. no call for anything supernatural.

Science NEVER relies on anything supernatural. Again, you speak from a hole that smells bad.
Religions rely on the supernatural (in other words, imaginary)

And this line of hokey crap,
Anything you can't explain at the moment MUST have come from the never never world! ? So again my definition of religion being nothing more than ignorance holds true.

What happened to you to make you forget it all?? Did you have a terrible accident?

If you had physics and chemistry then you should have ALREADY known what "stacks your blocks", how things can rise out of chaos through the fundamental forces into particles and atoms. You should have already understood the chemical processes that form molecules.

And most of all you should have laughed outloud at the sheer stupidity of it, the first time you heard a creationist try to use the second law of thermodyanamics to argue against evolution. I know I rolled around on the floor for a few minutes laughing when you tried to do it.

Since it is impossible to apply the scientific method to something that happened as long ago as infinity years (or even infinity picoseconds for that matter), name 3 other effects that are without a cause that can be verified by the scientific method. That might give me something valid to consider.....rather than to consider your statement I quoted as nothing but faith-based.

This is a statement of faith, plain and simple. If you will not agree that that this is faith then you are being irrational and any further discussion is pointless.