Honestly, I'm not sure how someone would go about that.
But the way I'm interpreting this idea would be something like this....
An atheist and a "nature theist" would both look at nature and basically agree on its 'nature' aspect. But then the theist would say, "It's also God." Well now, they would somehow need to demonstrate this additional quality. If there is no additional demonstrable quality, then all they're doing is changing one word for another which is, basically, pointless.
But the way I'm interpreting this idea would be something like this....
An atheist and a "nature theist" would both look at nature and basically agree on its 'nature' aspect. But then the theist would say, "It's also God." Well now, they would somehow need to demonstrate this additional quality. If there is no additional demonstrable quality, then all they're doing is changing one word for another which is, basically, pointless.