“The believer affirms a particular form of God. The atheist denies it. Then another believer affirms a quite different version of God, which the atheist has to set about denying all over again. It feels like a rather exhausting version of whack-a-mole.”
To say the atheist “denies it” misrepresents the position of most atheists. So-called “strong” atheism where the existence of a god or gods is denied is not the majority position. “Soft” atheism is the position of seeing no evidence for the existence of a god or gods. Rather than being a position of denial, it is saying that the burden of proof is on the theist, and until such time as measurable, observable, tangible evidence of a god or gods emerges, the atheist has nothing to deny. I know you will argue that this definition of a god or gods is too narrow, but thank you for the piece – I enjoyed reading it.
To say the atheist “denies it” misrepresents the position of most atheists. So-called “strong” atheism where the existence of a god or gods is denied is not the majority position. “Soft” atheism is the position of seeing no evidence for the existence of a god or gods. Rather than being a position of denial, it is saying that the burden of proof is on the theist, and until such time as measurable, observable, tangible evidence of a god or gods emerges, the atheist has nothing to deny. I know you will argue that this definition of a god or gods is too narrow, but thank you for the piece – I enjoyed reading it.