Not a vague abstract notion that ducks and weaves any criticisms - I see that as a bait and switch used on the part of theologians, when they're arguing for the existence of god they can drop to this vaguer definition, because it's easier to use these word games to make the idea seem plausible.
And you could say the exact same thing for Justice and Morality. Are they separate entities? Are they part of dichotomies of judgement? Or (and it would be a lot simpler) are they deities that sometimes appear on the human scene to provide help or hinderance? Should we stop believing Justice and Morality exist because the method of talking about them is difficult and even obscure? Of course not, that would be utterly intellectually lazy, and a hypocritical misuse of our faculties to not talk about them.
It's not a bait and switch, especially with the way theologians have talked about Miracles since the dawn of Christianity, namely, that they actively found Jesus miracles were incompatable with a Platonic notion of a supernatural God, and this bothered them immensely. With the advent of Aristotelian revival, this has seemed more and more relevant as time has gone on. As Wittgenstein said that either on the part of the Gospel writers or God himself, "A miracle means I have not yet given up on the Earth" or naturalism, if you will.
I'm saying x is incorrect because of our current understanding of the state of evidence and logical justification for it,
Even then, what evidence could there possibly be against or for a "supernatural" realm, given that we overwhelmingly exist in a natural one? There are signs on the highway near where I live that say there is one. Do those prove it? If Jesus of Nazareth or Paul of Tarsus were to appear on the scene of history again, would you believe it, or look for filming and special effect equipment around him? Jesus even said that those who aren't inclined to believe truth aren't inclined to change their minds even if given authentic supernatural evidence.
No it's just a matter of fact that you don't need to believe in the supernatural to be good, and do good works. The evidence for that is everywhere, denying it is just silly.
The point was the porportionality of it. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were overwhelmingly motivated to stand against fully armed modern states because they believed that God wanted their people to be free. James Baldwin and Chandra Bose decided to play pragmatic with their choices to protect their own lives. Baldwin cannot be faulted, but Bose literally shook hands with Hitler in an attempt to be pragmatic.
But yes, I do believe people can live perfectly moral lives without God.
And maybe also recognising that comments like Noah's really are just plain dumb!
But they're the type of dumb I like. Do you honestly think I submitted it because it was a good argument? No, I submitted it because it's like God's Not Dead; the type of thing most Christians don't care about, and the type of things hyper-sensitive atheists will whine over forever.