You could list Buddhism (although there are "spiritual", and "supernatural" beliefs within the dogma):
Satanism (no supernatural beliefs at all):
and Jainism (again spiritual and supernatural beliefs within dogma:
Shamanism and other forms of animalism could be counted (although it of course contains "small gods" in the form of spirits):
Don't worry. I don't believe in spirits. ;)
But this is an atheistic community, that does not mean that all people here don't believe in anything supernatural.
An atheist is highly likely to be a sceptic and a firm "believer" in science. But not all are. My partner is atheistic but believes in supernatural phenomona.
Miller certainly seems to advocates a world without supernaturalism in his introduction, but maybe the name he choose for this group was inaccurate.
If this group within the atheistic community is meant for non-supernatural religions only, it might need a change of name.
In that case I only have Satanism to add to the list.
Satan is he not one of the most supernatural force then?
Yeah, but Satanist don't believe in Satan. LaVey indeed only saw him as a metaphor. A proud, indulging, ego-loving, gentleman. Among other things. ;) But I am not here to advocate or defend Satanism, nor to convert people. I just named the religion because I was asked.
Monorealism from the website of the church of reality itelf:
Monorealism is the belief in one reality. That all things that are real are part of reality and that anything that isn't part of reality is not real.
The reason why I personally like it is because it also seems to exclude all the new age "reality is different for/to every person" bullshit. In my view there is only one reality. Because of our flawed human perception mechanisms and mental processes; everybody has a different, warped and ultimately flawed model of that one reality.
Sorry for the late reply:
Color is an attribute that matter has.
"The Qualia of Color" is the term that describes the conscious experience the consciousness experiences as it "sees" color.
Your definition of "real" would than determine if an "experience" is real or not. If you define it as "being matter" than the experience is not real because experience is no matter. If you define real as "being matter or the process of matter." than experience is probably real because modern science would indicate that experience is a process of matter.
I am no expert in any field of philosophy though. So I could be horribly wrong.