So much wrongness, it's almost hard to know where to begin
I'm no psychologist. But if we're going to trot out credentials, I am a physician and I received considerable training in inpatient and outpatient psychiatry. I've been in practice for 25 years and a considerable amount of that is spent on mental health issues.
Well done. It doesn't make you a psychologist though, and you dismissing what I said as 'pop' psychology betrays the fact that you're not a psychologist.
Then, by definition, science has nothing to say about the supernatural. It can neither prove nor disprove that which is outside of its purview. So we agree. Or maybe, as you suggested we are both ignorant.
Science doesn't deal in proofs - that's for philosophy, mathematics & distilling, but when someone claims that something supernatural has interacted with the natural world, they assert its involvement in the natural world, and that claim is then beyond the merely 'supernatural', and the total absence of evidence to support such claims, is something science can comment upon.
... naturalism (or materialism) which is a presumptive overlay to actual science. It is a view that cannot be tested, proved or refuted and as such is non-scientific in its assumptions which makes the naturalistic view of science an oxymoron. And as such it is a belief structure based of faith (since it cannot be tested or proved).
No. Science deals with the natural world. It is the basis of science that nature can be tested, poked, prodded, and that we can derive laws & rules and the like. It presumes to be able to investigate & in some way come to know, that which is part of nature. Don't confuse methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Though the latter presupposes the former, the opposite does not necessarily apply. It isn't based on 'faith' though. Science can indeed be tested, and provides repeatable results, that can be interrogated & replicated by others. Science enables us to put a man on the moon. If you want something equivalent from the supernatural, you'd better get bending some spoons.
You may want to read Alvin Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism.
For all his lofty academic credentials, Platinga is a mere apologist, not a seeker after truth. He starts from the basis that his religious beliefs are correct, and proceeds to assert & defend them. For an intelligent man, he certainly says some very stupid things.
The OP did not ask for an explanation or an education.
No shit, Sherlock.
Which you fail to balance with the understanding that there is not a scrap of evidence that a supernatural entity does not exist.
Please tell me how it would be possible to falsify something that is unfalsifiable? Please provide evidence that Three-toed Snortiblogs don't exist. What about the Tooth Fairy? If something doesn't exist, it doesn't leave any evidence, so how do you provide the evidence to prove it doesn't exist? And anyway, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Fanciful imaginings, even if they're ancient, don't constitute evidence for the reality of the fanciful imaginings. The burden of evidence rests with the person making the positive claim. In the absence of such evidence, the rest of us are entitled to point & laugh if we choose. I've chosen to offer an alternative set of explanations, that doesn't require unevidenced entities/powers. A rational explanation. I can point & laugh though, if you want.
That is so offensive.
No it's not. You might choose to be offended by it, but in & of itself, it is not offensive.
The very nature of it assumes that I have not examined my own belief structure when in truth, from your statements, it seems like I have gone to much greater lengths to examine mine than you have yours particularly in regard to your conflation of naturalism with science. You have your own religion and don't even now it.
No, I don't have a religion. If you can't work out why, ask a friend.
At least I can give my pixie a name and admit that I believer in him and explain why it is a fully warranted and rational belief based on the highest levels of philosophy, science and theology.
There is no science to support claims of supernatural entities, even those with names. As for the highest levels of philosophy, you're joking, right? And theology? Really? At its best, it is a bloody great case of begging the question.
...unlike you, I would not feel compelled to do so if they didn't ask me to. And even if I did I would at least try not to be condescending about it.
I had no intention of being condescending. I explained my reasons for commenting. Unlike you, I didn't ascribe any intention to the poster I was responding to, not least because I had no evidence of his intention, other than to offer up an anecdote (presumably for discussion/comment) he thought worth sharing.
Now, maybe, just maybe, we can rein-in the personalisations. You stop calling me smug & condescending, and I'll stop reacting in a condescending manner. You chose to read my post in a particular light. You will have your own reasons for choosing that interpretation. I'd suggest sticking to commenting on what is said, not how you choose to hear it being said, especially given that you can't actually hear what I say.