If naturalism is taken to mean that reality consists only of things we now consider part of nature, I'd consider it a dogmatic attitude that's inconsistent with skeptical, critical thinking. But if naturalism is defined expansively enough to include what might eventually be recognized as natural, I'd fully endorse it.

It's interesting that you include morphogenetic fields on the list of non-naturalistic notions. I'm not arguing that morphogenetic fields exist, but if there were sufficient evidence to confirm their existence, we'd have to include them as part of nature, and hence consider them consistent with the more expansive view of naturalism.

Another example is panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is much more pervasive in nature than we typically assume, inhering in any information-processing system, for example, or perhaps in any physical system. If anything sounds like mumbo-jumbo, it's this. But many serious philosophers and scientists working on consciousness are open to the idea of panpsychism. Perhaps we need to need expand our view of nature to include the idea that thermostats or even atoms have some glimmer of consciousness.

So I'd argue that the narrow view of naturalism, which dogmatically insists that nature is only what we now recognize as nature, is inconsistent with a rigorous skeptical attitude.

I think that atheists are often skeptics, so they often subscribe to naturalism, but I also don't think that they "should" have to do so.

I think atheism leads pretty organically to naturalism, but definitionally, sure, it's possible to lack belief in deities but to either believe in or be open to the possibility of other supernatural beings, realms, or phenomena. I don't think it's intellectually consistent though.

Scientism is a term that's usually used pejoratively, as an extreme overdetermined reliance on science.

I think we need both science and philosophical inquiry to answer "any meaningful question".

More basically, we need a working epistemology to make good determinations and religious faith is a failed epistemology. The best that we have is rationalism and empiricism informed by the scientific method.

The only "ism" that I subscribe to is existentialism.

Nope

I could be wrong, but I've never heard of "Scientism". I've only herd of the "Scientific method"
Which is trying to the best of their ability using data, and evidence to formulate predictions, that can be tested. and that which can be identified as tho most likely outcome of those tests, and what is put forth as the best we know given the evidence so far. Nature, is in fact the basis of most of those conclusions. So in a way they are one and the same.

I don’t think atheists are obliged to do anything, but if they claim their atheism is due to an insistence on rationality and verifiable facts, and yet they still believe in reincarnation or astrology, then they are, at minimum, not being consistent. I suppose there may be atheists who don’t blame their atheism on strict rationality but just don’t like the idea of some creep in the sky watching them all the time!

No I'm good, I've got a subscription to scientific American it's all I need.

Science (the scientific method) is certainly the best way to answer the questions that are important to me. Why are we here?" We are here because over time energy takes many forms, which includes life in its many varied forms. Why am I here? I am here because billions of random events resulted in my being here as opposed to no one, or some one else. Science (astrophysics, physics, biology, neurology, genetics, geology, anthropology etc) answers the question of how this is possible and gives us an understanding of what makes us human (the only animal that can create the concept of morality and then ponder over it); and also gives us glimpse of what has happened to us, and other life, and to our planet/cosmos, in our long, amazing, journey that began with a big bang.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God, however I do seek to understand or experience the nature of ultimate reality. Whatever the nature of ultimate reality, the term “supernatural” is a poor description and is of no help.

All these various “ism’s” can be confusing. IMO, what it boils down to is that some people cling tenaciously to the opinion that their perception of reality is the actual reality, and that the only way to understand that reality is through the scientific method.

Others can see that current scientific knowledge is superficial, and they yearn for deeper understanding. Beliefs, proofs, arguments—none of these are of much help when it comes to personal understanding. They seek glimmers of truth in the arts, in science, and in religion.

We should stop pretending that we know stuff we don’t know, and maintain an open mind to new and unorthodox ideas.

My only thought is the existence or non existence of god makes no difference to.me or how I live my life. More analyzing of it is creating a dogma to me. The only dogma I have is not to have one.

I love science, but i think it has its limits. I love nature and hold the assumption that all that actually exists is natural. But this may just be semantics.

This is a pet peeve. I have a broad range of freethinking friends and amongst them several that have practices and beliefs I find incompatible with atheism, or even freethinking.

Astrology/Numerology Really? The stars guiding your destiny, Mars in retrograde responsible for your lethargy? Why not just let god drive LOL.
Tarot. Card that can explain your personality and portend your future? Why?
Crystals/Auras. The thought that a rock can gather "energy" from the cosmos or that the color of the energy field you project (which can only be read by special aura readers) is beyond imbecilic.
Paganism/Druidism/Naturalism - all require faith and belief. Not at all atheistic.

As an agnostic atheist I do not believe in gods or anything supernatural because I find no evidence for any of this. What I do find is others who are more than happy to start making it all up.

There is no need for the ' ism ' after science. Science is what it is and what it will always be.

All Atheism is, is lack of belief in any gods. You can choose to believe in the supernatural and still be an Atheist. I believe the natural world has been proven by science to be real. Science is now in the business of testing for the supernatural or gods.

I don't agree with those definitions of Scientism or Atheism.

Scientism A BS construct created by theists to more relate science to religion and thus falsely use some of the arguments against religious beliefs against scientific theory.

Atheism is not a 'negative' stance, it is a 'neutral' stance. It is the automatic default given there's no evidence to the contrary. It is not a negative to not accept something not proven or without evidence.

But even given the questionable definitions, I would say that an Atheists isn't "obliged" to do anything but live their live as they see fit. There are no obligations to being an atheist as there is no dogma or list of rules. A person either is or is not. So long as any other aspect of their persona doesn't contradict the lack of belief in a deity, there is atheism.