How it works:
Theist: Let me explain, God is energy.
Atheist: Okay but i thought energy was.. (read up the textbook definition)
Theist: Thats not what i mean! God is energy, as in the source of life!
Atheist: But isnt life... source... i am confused. Can you explain that further?
Theist: Yes, I believe God made life, and he is energy, and i use energy as in the source of life.
Atheist: That sound suspiciously circular..
Theist: Its very simple, I claim God made X, and I define God as what made X come about, no circularity there, and I call that energy!
Atheist: That sound very plausible, I guess physics has been wrong about the concept of energy all along?
Theist: Precisely! They are scientists, after all -- if you limit yourself to what you can actually verify as being true you tend to get things very wrong, just look at all the times that method has gotten details in the bible wrong
Atheist: Let me try: God is Bird. I define Bird as the source of life?
Theist: Precisely! See how simple and profound it is? This way, you both arrive at a perfectly valid definition of God and Bird at the same time (two Gods with one stone..), despite what those ontologists i their limited scientific understanding try to shoehorn Bird into meaning!
(former) Atheist: I am convinced now! What happends if i use another term than energy?
Theist: Thats the amazing thing, the definition is equally sound! If you want a bit more eastern flavor, you can try with a random term from a science textbook on quantum mechanics. Deepak Chopra has arrived at some remarkable insights that way.
(former) Atheist: Wow. I just listened to one of his lectures on youtube, its amazing he can do all that hard work while understanding absolutely nothing about quantum mechanics, i will make sure to bring him up on various discussion forum in the same context as actual scientists. But i think i will stick to energy for now, thanks!