This is where I think the crux of the matter is. It's where atheists and I go 'round and 'round and 'round. How would you define god? Because to me it simply means might, venerated.
With respect, why would I care what it means
to you?
Or I you. It doesn't matter what we think. And, you're not wrong about what some gods are, just limited. You aren't wrong when you say a specific God is a god and supernatural - you are only wrong when you say it has to be. I know you're not talking about "THAT" god but you say "NO" gods exist. That's factually incorrect.
I care what it means to most people in my society.
Even if most people are wrong. Had you been around when most people thought the Earth was flat you would have thought that as well. As would I. And we'd be wrong.
Oxford's Dictionary definition of God:
1. In Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. In certain other religions, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate.
3. An adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god.
4. Informal: the gallery in a theater.
And so should you, unless you are trying to enable the very common bait-and-switch gotcha "argument", that goes something like this:
1. God simply means <insert something that obviously exists>
Or doesn't, or may or may not. It isn't about existence. I don't understand how an atheist could find that problematic outside of ideological fixation.
2. You cannot therefore deny that God is real and exists
Wrong. God would be dependent upon the culture. Like King. But you can deny that God isn't real. You can't know whether some specific Gods (Brahma, Jehovah, etc.) literally exist. Others, like Pharaoh, Zeus, in their time, The Japanese Royal family, and Kim Jong-Un do literally exist.
3. Therefore you are only pretending to be an atheist
No.
4. And you are really a member of my specific religion, who is lying to himself about its obvious factuality
No.
Now, you may not be trying to make this obviously very bad argument; But given how frequently I encounter it, and given how your set up here looks exactly like the setup for this truly execrable argument, you can understand my trepidation and my disinclination to agree with the first premise, which is personal to you (rather than generally or objectively true).
You don't think I encounter the atheist version of the same stupid argument? Consider
post #34 by
@Ford