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

[Belacqua]

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

Really, it doesn't.

The scientific method works with things that can be studied through repeated empirical evidence. 

Therefore, things which never repeat and can't be shown through empirical evidence can't be subjects for science. 

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?

Cheers.

Not at work. 

Everything has a nature. Its nature is what it is and does. Frogs have a frog nature. They are and do what frogs do. It is not in a frog's nature to sing "Là ci darem la mano." If a frog started to do this, it would be outside of -- "over" -- the frog's nature. That's what supernatural means. 

So what is the supernatural? It is every event which happens which is not in the nature of the thing which does it. 

The universe is very large and has been around for a long time. Human beings evolved for survival, not full-spectrum truth. Since our senses and the things we pay attention to are extremely limited, there could be stuff going on all the time that we don't know about. There could be hapax legomenon-type events which science can't address. 

It used to be that when something happened that natural philosophers couldn't explain, they would call it "occult," which just means hidden. That leaves open the possibility of later explanation. But that doesn't mean that everything can be explained someday. We don't know.

I am not saying that supernatural events occur. I am saying that if we rule them out because science can't study them then we are affirming the consequent.