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

[Belacqua]

Then I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m sorry.

@Peebo-Thuhlu

It occurs to me that we may be mixing up a logical argument with a conclusion drawn from evidence.

If you look all over the house and you don't find your cat, it is reasonable to conclude that your cat isn't there. He got out again. That's not an argument from ignorance, that's a conclusion you've drawn from research.

Here is the relevant part from the Wikipedia page on "Argument from Ignorance":

Evidence of absence
These examples contain definite evidence that can be used to show, indicate, suggest, infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something.

• One very carefully inspects the back seat of one's car and finds no adult-sized kangaroos.
  

It looks as though some people are making a similar claim with the supernatural. We've looked all over and we haven't found it, therefore it doesn't exist. The trouble is that searching for the supernatural is not like searching for a cat. By definition, the supernatural is not natural, and so using naturalist methods to search for it aren't relevant. 

An argument from ignorance would be like, "No one has proved it false, therefore it's true." And I have never said that. I have only said that we can't rule it out. Likewise, "No one has proved it's true, therefore it's false." 

Some examples of logical fallacies from the Wikipedia page:

• "There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence.
  

Arguments from self-knowing take the form:

1. If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
   
   
2. If Q were false then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore Q cannot be false.
   

That page quotes Carl Sagan on the fallacy:

the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa.

Since I am not claiming to know either way, I'm not committing this fallacy. I'm only saying that an absence of evidence (of the kind people here like) is not evidence of absence. 

I'm saying that neither logical arguments nor accumulated empirical evidence allow us any stronger conclusion than "It doesn't look like it, but I don't know."

Those people who confidently announce that the supernatural doesn't exist are committing this fallacy.