Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[Peebothuhlu]

Uhm... Three does not neccesserily follow from two though, Bel.

Jus' sayin' is all.

Cheers,

Not at work.

If it excludes supernatural explanations, then no supernatural explanations will be found.

4) Doesn't follow from 3).

The point is that if we accept only methods which exclude the supernatural as determinant of truth, then we have pre-determined the kind of answer we will accept.

For some people, "that which can be demonstrated by science" = "that which is true." It works well in practice, but it begs the question.

But.. it's doesn't 'Exclude' supernatural explanations Bel.

Really, it doesn't.

Okay, lets try something.

Can you give a cognizant definition of what "Suprenatural 'Is'.

Not what the word 'Supernatural' means... But "What is (The) Supernatural" ?

Then, perhaps, we'll be closer to being on the same page?

EDIT:

"possibletarian" 

Put forth much more succinct words than I.

Cheers.

Not at work.