Indeed their definition is close to what I had in mind.
I used to think of Naturalism as compelling, and even felt threatened by it (as I was raised Episcopalian). However, I have an insatiable appetite for thinking things through, and eventually realized Naturalism had irreconcilable flaws. After that I resented the hold it had on me, and I currently am inclined to lampoon it.
I don't think that's necessary. I don't really see anyone defending it to the exclusion of other philosophies, and it is somewhat self-lampooning in its definitive deficiencies.
Occasional posters will hark to the benefits of keeping emotionalism out of scientific investigations, but most will admit that invisible is not identical to nonexistent.