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

[Belacqua]

According to the definition you're using? Of course; it will be your particular definition du jour. Your definitions are remarkably fickle things.

If we're going to talk about something, it makes sense to define that thing. If you'd prefer to use a different definition, and make it clear, that's fine with me.

But anyway, there is no such thing as the supernatural and we know this for an absolute certainty because there is no possible mechanism whereby in can work.

How do you prove this? 

The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood.

[url=https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/][/url]

As I wrote yesterday, I'm fine with the idea that science can describe everything natural.

edit to add:

I watched the video. In the portion you describe as "an uppercut that floors the mystics," Dr. Carroll makes a persuasive case that no natural particle of field strong enough to affect the human mind over long distances remains undiscovered. I'm happy to take his word for it -- anyone who is claiming that undiscovered natural particles or fields affect the human mind over long distances should stop making that claim.

However, he doesn't say anything about the supernatural. Why should he? He's a physicist. His job is the natural world.

I don't know of any mystic who argues that undiscovered natural particles or fields affect the human mind. Are you sure you know what a mystic is? If they are making claims about the supernatural world, it is not something that Dr. Carroll will study. His speech here is completely irrelevant to the claims of mystics.

I find the writings of some mystics to be very beautiful. Theresa of Avila, Boehme, and Blake are among my favorites. Have you read anything by them? If you did, I think it would make clear that none of them makes claims that modern physics could address.