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

[possibletarian]

I apologize if I'm being repetitive. Of the arguments I've made on this thread, which did I make before on this forum, in the last many months? Can you point me to the posts in which my arguments were refuted? 

No one claimed they had been refuted, that's the joy of making unprovable and unfalsifiable or untestable statements, in much the same way anyone can about almost any untestable fantasy.  You simply haven't provided any evidence for considering the non~natural at all.

If it's required of us that we answer the questions put to us, I hope you'll hold poly to the same standards. He has refused to answer a very reasonable question from me.

Maybe he will maybe he wont ?  No one can or will do anything if you don't reply to his or my posts either.

I am not saying we should leap to a supernatural explanation. I am saying that if we assume without evidence that there is a natural explanation we are begging the question. I apologize for repeating this, but your question indicates I wasn't clear before.

I'm not sure science assumes anything (people might) , without evidence it simply says 'we don't know'

As I said before, if a person views the world as containing supernatural events, and finds an event which science can't explain, this would serve as evidence that science can't explain some things. 

How did you reach the 'science can't explain some things' ? , perhaps you mean hasn't as yet , or may never be able to explained some things ?
That still though does not justify a leap into untestable , undefinable and unprovable non~natural explanations.

For you, on the other hand, who has ruled out supernatural events, you would hold that there must be a natural explanation which hasn't been found yet

When i don't know I use the the words 'I don't know' can you give an example of what you would see as a non~natural event (which you personally have experience of) that cannot be natural in origin, and how you reached that conclusion ?

I think I have answered this above. If no natural explanation is available, then there is a possibility of a supernatural one. Unless you have ruled this out a priori.

No one has ruled anything out, we have yet to find a reason to justify anything other than a natural explanation, why do you think a non~natural explanation could even exist to hold any answers ?   

If you can prove that nothing supernatural has ever happened, that would be interesting. But if you can only show that science hasn't found anything supernatural, then I have to repeat that science only allows natural explanations by definition.

And forgetting science why do you even think a non~natural explanation exists or is even possible (beyond simply believing it so)
If you are making a claim of a non~natural possibility, explain how you reached that conclusion (again beyond simply believing it could be so)

I am not asking anyone to do anything. It's clear that people are very attached to their metaphysical positions. I'm apparently the only one of the forum who isn't completely sure what the truth is.

Of course no one is absolutely certain what the truth is, just that no one who has claimed a non~natural world has been able to show that it is even a viable possibility, using any means.

So far as I can see you have simply been using the worlds wordiest and longest 'god of the gaps' type argument. Sure we have grasped that you are pre-disposed to see anything you (or others) cannot explain as needing a possible non~natural explanation,  But beyond some personal belief have failed to provide any reasons why others should think this way.