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

[Belacqua]

I generally like Bel, but I think he’s realized he botched this one. His entire argument is indistinguishable from an argument from ignorance, and he has so far been unable to make that distinction. He simply can’t.

I disagree with you.

To say there are things of which we are ignorant is just a statement of fact. 

To assume that we are sure to learn everything is an unwarranted assumption. 

If I were claiming that because there are gaps the supernatural must exist, that would be an argument from ignorance. But that is very much NOT what I'm saying.