OneEyedJoe: What's the point in having a god that deserves neither worship, nor respect?
I would add another question to yours: if God exists, does he want and require our worship? Does he care for that? Why would he, anyway?
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
OneEyedJoe: What's the point in having a god that deserves neither worship, nor respect?
I would add another question to yours: if God exists, does he want and require our worship? Does he care for that? Why would he, anyway?
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
You want a definition? Let me play your game.
Ancient tribes worshipped the sun. To them it was the source of light, heat and the nurturing of life. They didn't think of it as a person, an intelligence. They accepted it at face value. For them, it was their God. In this case, does God exist or not?
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
An atheist is somebody who doesn't accept the grandiose claims of theism.
An atheist does that by making yet another grandiose claim, this time about the inexistence of deities.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Again, don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I said: "The only thing that can be said about God (or deity or deities) is that it's absent, hence I'm an absentheist". I didn't say "There is a God and it's absent". Stop putting words in my mouth so that you can argue against them.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Why not just say there is absolutely no evidence for god and leave it at that?
Because that is absolutely NOT the same thing as saying "God doesn't exist". There lies the fallacy. I agree with you on the lack of evidence. But that only proves the absence of the deity, not its inexistence. There's a logical leap on your reasoning that doesn't adhere to reality, and indeed is a spectacular claim that demands overwhelming evidence from atheists - as much as the evidence demanded from theists.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
There isn't a universally accepted definition of a deity that we can honestly discuss. We can only make conjectures about who, what that entity might be. But, given the absence of said deity, any discussion we may start about it may start with wrong premises. It's incredibly pretensious to say : "define me any deity and I shall prove its inexistence". What a preposterous claim - it sounds very much like a profession of faith. No, Cofty. Both Theists and Atheists make spectacular claims about deity or deities and none of them can provide the necessary overwhelming evidence to back up their claims. It's the only thing that can be honestly said about God - that it's absent.
As for God not corresponding to the ideas we have about God ... I don't see in it enough logical grounds to be an atheist. Perhaps, one could say "I don't care if the God I expected to exist does indeed exist or not. It's indifferent to me." That's another story - that's "apatheism" - apathy towards God.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Because, as you so relentlessly claim, we should always adhere to reality, stick to the evidence, and be prepared to back up spectacular claims with facts. The claim that deities don't exist is at least as spectacular as the claim that they exist. Big claims demand overwhelming evidence, as you always say. Theists can never find evidence that will sufficiently satisfy unbelievers, and atheists cannot provide evidence of the inexistence of a deity that will convince theists. Since you so like Ocam's Razor, the simplest, verifiable claim that can be made about God (or any deity that you chose to elect) isn't that it doesn't exist; simply that it is absent.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Nonsense. If I say that a boogeyman couldn't be found in my bedroom, am I claiming that the boogeyman exists? Or am I making the simplest, verifiable claim about the boogeyman? But if I'd say "the boogeyman isn't in my bedroom because it doesn't exist", then I have the burden to present evidence that such entity can't be found in any corner of the universe, and in all dimentions known to physics. See my point?
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
My claim is simple: the only thing that can be said about a deity or deities is that their absence is a verifiable fact. By saying this I'm not asserting God's existence and there's no necessity to define said deity or deities. Don't put claims that I'm not making in my mouth.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Nope, not the same thing. My proposition adheres to reality, yours doesn't - it merely relies on a probability.
Eden