Now you're getting a little irritating...

***I just finished telling you I have more legitimate reasons in support. YOU DID NOT SEE THAT in my original post. I stated it AGAIN.
I'll state it a THIRD time: "Therefore I reject the supernatural, not because I assume it is non-existent a priori, but rather because I have no evidence of it." What part of "no evidence for it" don't you understand?***

Shucks, and I just wrote that long post to clear up matters, and it turns out you missed all of these comments:

"I contest the notion that there is some philosophically correct preference for the rejection of dualism due to a lack of current scientific evidence..."

"I understood that you were using Occam's razor to justify this view..."

"The reason why your comment rubbed me the wrong way is that I get the impression that it implied that there is a philosophically correct perspective here..."

"When you mentioned staying consistent with a scientific ontology you really threw me."

"You can choose other ontologies (e.g., even theist ontologies), you just can't let it interfere with scientific progress. This is why I don't think there is some correct criteria that automatically rejects certain ontologies of consciousness as being unscientific."

"It would seem that heavy beliefs in certain kinds of supernaturalism might interfere with some scientists' pursuit of the methods of science, but we cannot say for sure. They might not."

Read my post next time.

***Don't BS me with your pomposity, Harvey.***

Don't shove your materialist BS down me and we'll get along just fine.

Harv