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

[LadyForCamus]

up until this point, every cause for a physical phenomenon we’ve ever explained has been a natural one

I think I addressed this before.

The scientific method is set up to find natural causes. It's no surprise that every cause it has found has been natural. It finds what it's set up to find.

Science is set up to find causes. In order to hold a rationally justified belief in this proposed, “extra” category of causes, we would need a valid and sound reason to do so. Is there one?

I don't know if we have reasons or not at this point.

So, at the present, we know of no good reason to believe that the supernatural exists, and/or that it should be considered as a candidate cause for any unexplained phenomenon? 

---

It’s not the unbeliever’s responsibility to consider it, without good reason, as a possible cause in every instance, or assume it is the cause when he can’t find a natural answer.

I'm not asking anyone to consider it without good reason.

So, then if I say “I can’t rationally consider it because I have no good reason at this time to do so,” we’d be in agreement then? 

I'm saying that assuming its non-existence, a priori, is begging the question.

No it’s not, because it’s not a reasonless a priori assumption, lol. It’s a lack of consideration resultant from having no good reason to consider it in the first place. 

If you don't want to think about the questions science can't address, that's fine. That's your taste.

I think about those things constantly, but in the absence of any logical, rational way to investigate them, if such things exist at all, there’s nothing else to do but think. I can’t see a way in which those ponderings, fascinating as they are, can be practically useful.