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

[Mister Agenda]

Why did you title this atheist vs naturalist ?

There is no versus. You can be both and I would say most are.

That's what I was going to say. Most atheists whom I've read on the Internet are certainly also naturalists.

In fact I think it would be good if people used the term more about themselves. If it's true, as we're confidently assured, that atheism is merely a lack and has no positive assertions, then it would clarify our conversations if we knew what view people hold to. 

The claim that one's position on metaphysical issues is a lack of position (i.e. atheism) is sometimes used to imply that one has nothing to defend or explain. But since thinking adult atheists reject religious claims for some reason -- usually naturalism -- such people do hold a position and do have something to justify. 

And to be clear I am not at all saying that naturalism is a bad position to hold -- only that it is a position with reasons and implications.

I think that once we've established that someone is an atheist, the next step, if you're interested, is to ask what positions they DO hold. Merely being a theist doesn't say much of anything either. If you never get to, say, 'I'm a methodological naturalist', that's on the interrogator, isn't it? It's not the theist's fault if I don't care to inquire about the specifics of their theology.

Here, atheists often cover why they're an atheist in their introduction threads.