My problem isn't with the idea that there is no god or supreme power, it's defining oneself by what one doesn't not believe in. What about this statement. I believe in a universe that is defined by chaos and lack of a supernal patterning. That wasn't so hard, was it? While it doesn't quite roll off the tongue, you can say that and not look like an idiot by defining yourself by what you lack belief in. Please keep in mind I am aware I mention a supreme power in that statement (supernal patterning) but the difference is starting with what the belief is and then defining what that belief consists of. I'm saying I believe in this, defined by this, and by a lack of this. That gives the belief structure, instead of existing defined by a lack of structure entirely.
I don't even have a problem with the phrasing "I don't believe in god." It's the atheists that use that kind of phrase as a budgeon to beat christians, muslims, jews and other god fearing people away from their belief in god. It's not even atheists that try to convert me to atheism, I love a good religious discussion. People explaining to me why they believe what they do and how they came up with their thoughts and feelings on the subject, I can listen to that any day of the week. The problem atheists are the militant about their atheism (I say their because I am definitely a believer in God)and are stupid about it.
I consider myself an Agnostic Theist. What that means is that I believe in God, but don't believe there is any reasonable proof of his existence. I am an empyrical thinker at heart. Logic, scientific/mathematic relationships, equations, formulae, geo-ecological/socio-cultural systems are the bread and butter of my thinking. The idea that life formed on this planet and all of the statistical impossibilities that were required to produce such life is inconceivable to me without the possibility of god.