An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

Not all atheists are one, but I think naturalist would be a rather important sub-term. And since many open atheists, who would care about their label, also hold their naturalistic views in high regard, as they also tend to argue against ghosts and the like, it might be of use as a positive term.

It's because our concepts of a god, or the Judeo-Christian god, and the supernatural in general, work in such a way it cannot be 100% disproven ever, even if it doesn't exist, because there's always a argument to make about transcending nature, God staying in hiding, etc. As a results, most atheists like Dawkins argue that while a 100% knowledge is impossible, their evidence and arguments have make God extremely improbable in their view, around 99+% or something, although in practice their habits are round it of to 100%, not choosing to ponder over the 0,01 margin of doubt. Like I said earlier, by it's nature the supernatural can't be disproven fully even if it doesn't exists, so it's seems more like a formal doubt then any real doubt. If I'm in error, somebody can correct me on this. Some atheists are more formally agnostic then others, calling yourself a agnostic all the time, rejecting atheism, being the logical conclusion of it.It's a little abstract, but we can't disprove we live in a computer program, or the entire universe is some being's imagination, and so forth.