Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[polymath257]

if it is doing something, that activity is in its nature.

This is the metaphysical question begging that everyone here is doing. You are sure, a priori, that it must be so.

In what way could your assertion here be falsified?

No, that is the *definition* of the term 'nature'. You don't verify or falsify definitions. They are either useful or not. So read the rest of my post and comment on
what I was saying instead of picking one statement.

So, if you don't like this definition, propose an alternative and explain why you think your definition captures the concept better than mine.

---

I think of 'Kami's' every now and then.

They're a splendid idea to think about. 

Now... if you'd be kind enough to supply a'Better' example of 'Supernatural' than just stapling 'Frog and 'singing' together, that'd be great.

I'm sure you can come up with examples that are just as good. Just think of something which is well known, the limits of which are fairly obvious. 

The point of course is that things as they exist are a certain way and not another. Your body is made of flesh and blood, not solid lead; it's human-sized, not a million miles long; it does human things, and not quasar things. 

Yes, and all of those properties are discovered by observation. Ultimately, the nature of a thing is all of the properties it has: all the interactions it has, and all the behavior it has. And ALL of those are determined via observation.

Thought... I thought perhapse you were trying for some humor referencing the old "Merry Melodies"/"Looney Tunes" cartoon for a while there. 

Now that you mention it, I remember that cartoon! The frog sings and dances with a top hat, right? Maybe that was in my subconscious somehow when I thought of my example. Man, Saturday morning cartoons were fantastically important for me about 55 years ago. That and Batman twice a week.

As I recall, in the cartoon the frog refused to demonstrate his singing ability for anyone but his owner, right? Some people here would conclude from this that the singing ability never existed.

Yes, if that was consistently the case, the conclusion is, clearly, that the owner is delusional. That is almost the definition of delusional, after all.