Thank you for answering my question!
Although that does seem to contradict your assertion that only nature exists. It seems to me you're only a "non-atheist" on a technicality--a definition of the word that essentially means there is no such thing, since no one can "prove that a god or gods do not exist." Which means that all those people who call themselves "atheists" aren't really atheists.
Didn’t read earlier where he disqualified himself as “agnostic” -
but it seems to me that declaring that you can’t prove the existance or non-existance of God is pretty much the definition of agnostic. “We don’t and can’t know.”
I believe he’s pulling the same crap that all atheists/secular humanists (and MSM journalists) pull -
“WE’RE neutral, the rest of you are religious (ideological) zealots”
I have only seen evidence for the natural