I suppose so, yeah. It makes me laugh when people talk of
the 'supernatural' - if it's 'above' nature, then how can their
senses perceive it? If god exists, then it exists *within* nature,
not outside of it. To claim that god is 'supernatural' is a logical
impossibility. If god is supernatural, then we would not - and could
not - know of him. But then, WE know that. Unfortunately, the
average theist doesn't...

I'll have to investigate the Brights, if they're intending to be a
serious movement. I did see that Richard Dawkins has 'aligned'
himself with them in some of his newspaper articles, although I'm
unsure how close he intends to be with them.

- Matt

--- In atheismuk2@..., philsviews <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> What about the point that if scientific evidence was found, it
would
> no longer be supernatural, so we could still say we were right all
> along.
>
> How can we know that there is no supernatural if we change our
> definition of what is supernatural as time goes on.
>
> Is that a case of moving the goalposts?
>
> BTW, the Brights are trying to become a serious movement. The
> website for those that have not found it is www.the-brights.net .