There seems to be no mention of the igtheistic/nostic approach which is: before arguing god's existence, define god. If one cannot define god without reaching towards illogical doctrine, anything that is purely philosophical or ideas that are not completely coherent then what is one arguing?

God, by current use, appears that it may be a meaningless term, which is what sends arguments into spirals of disrepair from the beginning. By igtheistic belief there is nothing to argue. It's like a debate without the moot.

Atheism can be seen to acknowledge that there is a definition of god (regardless of whether one does not believe that this defined god exists). That's where it goes wrong.