One simple answer is 'no' to your topic question. Most see the word 'supernatural' as representing some sort of 'human-like' (funny about that) intelligence and consciousness that exists outside of our world of time and space. Most (Abrahamic) religious people believe such a thing exists and can love & be loved (ghosts have mixed acceptance), while naturalists (and, presumably, most atheists) do not. Actually the whole idea of a clear natural/supernatural separation seems a relatively modern Western concept. People of the past and other cultures saw or see everything as natural. The true differentiation is probably what is discernible by empirically-based methods and what is not and hence your attitude to that.
All people (theists and non-theists) have to be careful about being too arrogant and dogmatic about fact, fiction, and truth in this area. We, as atheists, love science as the discerner of truth. However, today many scientific advances involve areas we cannot even perceive and can only be explained through specialised mathematics. We, as laypeople, take that truth on trust (or is that faith?). There are many interesting philosophical arguments on the realism or non-realism of science. Also we need to recognise that science, like any human activity, has fashionable and unfashionable ideas, and always be prepared for today's 'dark matter' becoming tomorrow's 'cold fusion'.
For me that's the difference with religious attitudes. Practicing religionists may argue over interpretations of faith but they rarely (if ever) question the very existence God's actual existence. Any form of contrary evidence seems irrelevant. They like to question the flexibility of Dawkins et al while being very dogmatic about the existence of God themselves, but that's a whole different argument... Alex
P.S. An alternate simple answer might be 'yes' in that 'supernatural' is a contrived concept. As I said before, it is better to stick with what exists and how do we know. And so the argument goes on...
I agree, I love to argue over these things. I've argued against freewill for many hours in recent years. Quite a bit in the last few days actually. I just posted a couple blogs about it. Check them out. I'd love to hear your take. Also, I think you'll find some of my answers to your other questions as well in the comment section as well as elsewhere in my blog.
In short, choice is causal and dependent on basically everything. There is no magical unmoved mover in the brain. Freedom and control are relative terms describing a relationship between entities, not absolute qualities of anything. It is impossible to have total control or freedom. Choice is better understood as dependent, not free. In no way do I believe this absolves someone of guilt. We are biological machines and if one biological machine violates the individual rights of another, they should be held accountable, for protection and moral and political freedom, not for moral punishment.
In short, if we try to see the tiniest aspect of a border between chunks of matter, or we try to pinpoint the position and momentum of a very small vast moving object or we try to see the collapse of a particle-wave function, we are limited by our perception. That's really all, imo, that we can say about quantum physics. One cannot properly extrapolate seemingly random events to the rest of the metaphysical realm. Just because we cannot visualize every detail in the causal link, does not invalidate borders or causality. Which brings me to dark matter. Something tells me that we will fairly soon be able to describe it and reduce it perceptual evidence, but we can logically infer its existence now. Maybe we cannot describe it fully, but our understanding will get better and more appropriate. We have limits to our knowledge, many of which are being overcome, but we certainly can gain knowledge, however, there is only one way----> The hierarchical and contextual noncontradictory integration of perceptual evidence.