"Why don't atheists accept what is outside of the natural world"
Because there is no such thing. All that exists, on whatever level it may exist, is a part of the natural world.
"I mean there are ways to know things are real, besides through scientific evidence."
Thinking and desiring are not KNOWING. And even if you do experience something, without evidence of it you have right to whine when other people say "what a load of bullshit", call you a liar and walk away.
"I mean like through commen sense, duh!"
Scientifically uninformed common sense would say there obviously aren't countless invisible waves of energy coursing through the air in any given place at any given moment. Scientifically uninformed common sense would be wrong. Common sense is informed by whatever knowledge is relatively widespread among the group in question. Knowledge. You know: that thing you're arguing doesn't matter even as you fall back on something that is itself reliant upon it.
"Just lie you can know that Jesus and God exist eternally and outside of the universe."
That's one hell of a Freudian slip, there. "Just lie", indeed. And you cannot KNOW that. In fact your own book discounts that idea by claiming that God is omnipresent. As in present in all places in this universe. Which means that while he could have his ass hanging out the window he'd still exist in this reality, too.
"This is so obvious, I don't even know why God had tribesmen right a book about him."
You're right; it is obvious. Not in the way meant, of course, but obvious all the same.
"So not only do you have evidence that supersedes science, you have a holy bible. That's two strikes, atheists."
Two things:
-There is NO SUCH THING as evidence that supersedes science because, if irrefutable evidence of a thing exists, it is science that must conform to what has been discovered. That's how science works. The problem is that you think "I've got a good feeling on this one" means the same thing as "look at what I've found" and "I have an hunch" means "I have a theory".
-A claim is not evidence of itself. That is not how evidence works. The fact that your book assures you that it's not lying to you is no more credible than when a street vendor assures you that all of his wares of are of the highest craftsmanship.
That's two strikes to the face, theists.
"Why, God is evidence that you don't need evidence in science to know something is real. Strike three"
No, God is just evidence -- which I could have sworn you started off arguing didn't matter -- that no amount of evidence, no matter how solid, will ever make stupid people expounding on concepts they don't even vaguely understand any less depressingly idiotic.
I'd deliver strike three personally but I wouldn't be able to stop myself from using an aluminum bat to do it.
