How to be a strong atheist in a rather straightforward way

[Purple Rabbit]

I think whether or not the word 'god' references a real thing is more subjective.

One can argue (as theological noncognitivists do) that the sentence "god exists" does not express a proposition since the word god has no meaningful attributes and hence that nothing named 'god' exists.

I would then argue the other side, that the term 'god' is (unfortunately) definable by the individual using (and hearing) it. God is just another word, and words are something I am intimate with. It is an abstract expression of a concept, so I had to disagree when you said it wasn't a definable concept. If it is anything, at the least it is a concept.

You can define 'god' to mean for example (A) 'table' or (B) 'the esotheric essence of being that unnoticebly for others guides me in all I do'. A is in essence a homonym for table, it completely parasitizes on a concept with perceivable characterics or attributes and no one seriously proposes it. B does nothing of the sort. It rather cloaks all attributes of god since there are no specifics that can be verified by others. Theological noncognitivists argue that all proposed definitions of god(s) by religions are either refuted by evidence or are of type B, they have no unambiguously defining characteristics.

It's all about how you define the loose term of god. You, I think, would define God as something that does not exist. Or may not exist, I don't intend to speak for you... I define God as something, alternatively, that does or may exist. All the proof and evidence is wholly circumstantial and relative, God only exist in a debatable theory nowadays. So it's not that I feel I am denying scientific fact by believing in God, but that (as per my personal definition, and I can't speak for everyone) God and science are only opposed if you choose to believe in a God opposed to science.

I would not define god as something that does not exist. I'm open to assess existence of anything that somehow is perceivable. So what we need is perceivable characteristics that uniquely identify the proposed phenomenon. I feel no need to define god, since I have no believe in god.

Just for clarity, I can't leave out the personal definition of god I keep referencing. I think god is half intelligent design and half logical probability. The system as I see and exist in it appears far too complex to be accidental, coincidental or a matter of chance.

I also deny a purely accidental nature of the universe. The universe is not pure accidence but instead there's a pattern in this universe that science shows us, and we call it the laws of nature. Do you deny the laws of nature? If existence were pure accidence, we would not be around to testify about it. Reasoning for beings 'outside' or 'above' the universe that necessarily support this universe are fallacious (since they would be in need for some upport for the same reasons) and without evidence.