Certainly doing nothing can’t be called an “investigation”.
I'm guessing that you're referring to your lack of investigation into claims that vampires exist. You're never going to come to believe in them unless you think about them for so long and so earnestly that you begin to expect to see evidence of them. After that, you will. You'll become a believer.
Trying to understand and clarify?
That's not credible. It appears that you don't understand what I'm telling you, and have asked no questions that might clarify what that is. Go ahead and try to paraphrase what I've told you about transforming the meaning of words. I'm pretty sure that you not only can't, but aren't interested in understanding what was written to you. That's fine. I have my answer. My question for myself and the reason I asked you for your opinion was to help determine whether this represented some cognitive bias or comprehension defect - an inability to understand - or done knowingly, which would make it bad faith argumentation and trolling.
that sounds a lot of unbelief jargon to me.- could you rephrase that into a more simpler sentence?
That was in response to, "The problem is regardless of belief 'supernaturalism' cannot be falsified by any method that relies on objective verifiable evidence." You seem to be saying that you don't understand what is being said there. He's telling you what I'm telling you. "Investigate the supernatural" means look at evidence for the claim. There is none. The claim is unfalsifiable, namely, that there exists a reality which is distinct from and transcends our reality, and which is defined as beyond empirical investigation.
You have said a number of times that belief in the supernatural and God is something that is still open for you and I can speak only for myself when I say that even though you say that, you do say thing that imply imo the supposition that the supernatural and/or God is not true.
Then you'd be wrong regarding the supernatural part. If you weren't, you could have provided specific quotes that say that, but you can't.
I'm telling you that I'm willing to change my opinion about the supernatural if given and sound reason to do so. It's true that I'm not expecting to find evidence for the supernatural if I haven't in almost 70 years, but that's not saying that the supernatural doesn't exist. It isn't necessary for me to say that, and if I did, it would be just as much of a faith-based belief as the opposite - that it does exist.
You display the same cognitive quirk that Kenny does - the one I call unbelief/disbelief conflation. I write A ("I don't believe your claim") and you read B ("I know that you're wrong"). This is a fine example of that. No matter how many times and how clearly I state my agnostic position, it is transformed into something else - denial of the possibility that what I haven't accepted I also haven't ruled out. Let me say this again: I don't need to claim that gods or the supernatural don't exist in order to live as if they don't.
Regarding "God," assuming that you mean the god of Abraham, I have concluded that that god doesn't exist. I am NOT agnostic about that particular god. Still, I expect you to read that my opinions about both "God" and gods and the supernatural are the same - they don't exist - and my question to both of you is why this happens. Neither of you seem to understand what I'm saying or asking.
That's also fine. I don't need you to understand. I've done my level best to help you do that, but I've made no apparent impact on the thinking of either of you, which is meaningful by itself.
@It Aint Necessarily So is not skeptic/atheist.
I don't know why you say so. I use both of those words to describe myself.
Yes, there's a good reason why they won't agree, it's a patently absurd. Do feel free to explain how a scientific theory or hypotheses can fail to be natural.