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

[possibletarian]

Why would you jump to considering a non~natural explanation for an experience, what reasoning did you use to make that jump ?

If there were a case in which no scientific explanation were possible then ruling out a supernatural explanation a priori would be begging the question. 

People's insistence that if the frog sang an Italian duet it would absolutely have to have a natural explanation is begging the question. Promissory naturalism.

A more skeptical person, when seeing something that science has shown to be impossible, might consider a supernatural explanation. Someone committed to a scientific metaphysics would rule out a supernatural explanation. 

That's all for today. I'm just repeating myself.

Well yes you are repeating yourself, and have been doing for many months, but you still need to answer the question.

1) Let's say there is no explanation known for an event, why would we make the leap to a non~natural explanation, what makes you consider this as an alternative  ?

2) Let's say someone has an experience they can't explain,  how would this increase the credibility of a non~natural explanation ?

3) Let's say a frog did exactly as you have suggested, (something that would have to happen in the confines of the natural world to be observed) at what point do you make the leap to a non~natural explanation, and why ?

If you simply say you believe that the non~natural could exist as a personal belief, then fine. But to ask others to consider it as a viable alternative requires more.