I remember hearing on the radio, when I was about 20, that the argument that "all is nature so everything that happens is natural (including television and the Mona Lisa)" was a very adolescent argument. The speaker was a BBC Radio 4 cultural commentator who looked down with disdain on the 17 year olds who made this sort of claim. I was irritated with him because I agreed, and agree, with the 17 year olds.
Take homosexuality for example. I can understand those who believe in a religion saying it is against the teaching of this, that, or the other god, prophet, saint or holy book. (And they can be very against it. I heard one Christian almost foaming at the mouth and being about very biologically specific about which orifices are supposed to be used for what purposes). Anyway, this I can understand, coming from "believers".
But there are some atheists who also maintain homosexuality is "against nature". Why? Because it does not promote the continuation of the species. But they reveal themselves, these particular atheists, to be theists in disguise. They assign to nature a purpose (the continuation of the species) and a mind which "wants" the continuation of the species. Something as big as nature that has a mind, desires and objectives sounds a lot like a god to me.
So I'm with the 17 year olds. Everything is nature. If we all turned homosexual and the human race died out, would "Nature" "care"?