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

[Belacqua]

If you went back 200 years, many of the things we do on a daily basis would have been considered 'magical' or 'supernatural'. We communicate instantly with people across the world, we can remotely control machinery, we can bring up moving pictures of events, we can cure diseases, etc.

Much of the modern world would have been considered to be supernatural not all that long ago. The only reason we don't consider it so today is because it is part of the technology we use and we feel we understand it.

There are two difficulties I can see with this argument.

First, a lot of the wrong beliefs in the past were wrong, but not supernatural. 

For example, humoral theory and astrology were both attempts to explain cause-and-effect outcomes by the actions of natural substances and forces. There was even empirical evidence that parts of this were correct: when Porphyry was depressed, Plotinus told him that depression was caused by an abundance of cold and dry humors, so the treatment was to go spend a couple of years in a hot wet climate. After two years on Mediterranean beaches, Porphyry felt a lot better. I think a few years on Mediterranean beaches would help me out, also. We now consider the explanation to be false, but if it worked in enough cases that's what we call evidence. 

Some things were explained by what we would today call "supernatural" causes -- for example the wrath of God. But even that isn't as divorced from the natural as the way it may appear to us now. If God is the Good and sin is misdirection away from the Good, then the wrath of God is what you get when you do what's bad for yourself and your society. You get sick, you get riots in the streets, etc. God doesn't have emotions the way people do, so when Dante says "God's wrath" he just means that you're getting the bad result you were aiming for. 

As for technological advances, I'm not sure why that's relevant. People have theories of what works, they test the theories, the theories get better. To say that in every case advancement came by discarding supernatural explanations and adopting natural ones is far too simple. 

Galileo rejected the idea of the moon affecting the tides because he didn't believe in "action at a distance," a concept which was considered non-natural at the time. Newton was religious and an alchemist, so he was willing to accept action at a distance, renamed it gravity, and got it right. Then we decided gravity is natural. 

More importantly for the argument on this thread, your argument here is not logically sound. If you're claiming that because some things in the past which were seen as supernatural turned out to have natural explanations, that's not sound proof.

"It happened before in some cases, therefore it will always happen the same way in the future," isn't logic. You could certainly say you believe it will always happen that way. You could risk an argument from personal incredulity and say that you don't see how it could be any other way. But those are opinions, not proof.