I've been using a Mac full-time for the last 8 years, and I do the vast majority of file manipulation in Terminal instead of Finder, because I find the command line easier and more intuitive.
This might be the case for you, but please don’t mistake it for an objective truth. I find the terminal far superior for file manipulation than any of the graphical file explorers I have used. I especially find copying quite clumsy, as I either have to open several windows and navigate to the correct locations, or leave the source folder behind as I navigate to the destination. In my terminal I can stay in the source folder if I want to, and even navigate directly to the destination with a short, generic command.
How many users have an iPhone or iPad as their primary computer? How often are they manipulating files?
Where's the "you don't need a gui" entry for making phone calls, sending messages, playing music, using GPS, etc... While you can certainly do all those things by command line, few people would argue it's a better experience.
ctrl+a shift+delete enter
This is the fallacy of logos.
When I was learning about files and filesystems, the GUI had not even been invented. It is certainly not natural to me to conceive of file operations as cartoons moving around on a TV screen.
What's happening here is you're mistaking what you may have first learned for what is normal or natural. That it seems normal or natural to you is an inherent property of your experience, not an inherent property of file manipulation.
Myself, I do a lot of file management in Emacs these days. Dired - Emacs folder viewer - essentially turns output of `ls` into interactive folder listing, that you can manipulate the way you'd use an orthodox file manager like Norton Commander or Midnight Commander, but that you can also just edit as text and have Emacs apply changes to the file system. To kind of boost your point about "normal" being learnable, it's absolutely normal for me now to expect to be able to rename files or change permissions by editing output of `ls`.
Now, as others have pointed out, when it comes to specific operations involving redundant tasks, it's obviously easier to use CLI (`rename JPG jpg *.JPG`, etc.) (though in the case of mass renaming, it's less confusing to use Thunar's Rename right-click option).
In the old days you used Norton Commander for that, which ran in text mode. I'm sure there must be some open source equivalents today which run in the terminal.
(But no kidding: somethings feels CLI very natural, sometimes feels GUI more natural for me.)
That's not to say you should do it. It's fine if you do, it's fine if you don't.
edit I see others beat me to it in mentioning mc. I'll leave this here anyway.
In other contexts, you'd group CLIs and TUIs together. For example, both can be used from a terminal emulator, both are easy to use over SSH connection, and (an underappreciated feature) in both CLI and TUI apps, it's easy to just copy what they show as text.
It's like adding a second dimension, plus vi keybindings to the process
OK, rename all files ending in .foo to end in .bar instead. With the GUI.
Now when it comes to more complex applications, I'd stop using the CLI if I had to search the manpages or the internet each time for doing something I already did previously. Since I discovered the Ctrl+R shortcut (for searching your history), it has been much easier. You read the manpage once, maybe you do an internet search, you enter the command and then you can find it back as long as it's still in your bash history (be sure to set HISTSIZE and HISTFILESIZE to correct values). I also have a DOCS.txt file where I put all the rare but useful commands I'm afraid of losing. I don't need to be an expert in ffmpeg's options (... though I sort of am now), I can just look at my history or my DOCS.txt file!