DuracellEnergizer said:
Or perhaps God -- being an infinitely non-human entity far beyond our comprehension -- has concepts of good and evil, pleasure and pain that are completely alien to ours.
In other words, if God doesn't fit into a stereotypical caricature, you don't want to talk about Them. God either has to be a bloodthirsty tyrant or a hippie pacifist; any other concepts of God -- especially concepts of God that paint human mores as finite/trivial -- aren't worth discussing.
No the point is that if everyone has his own unique, idiosyncratic "concept" of "God", then nobody actually believes in the same thing. Everyone just fabricates his own cosmic ghost-blankie and calls it "God". It's like if you said "I love chocolate ice cream," and I said "I also love chocolate ice cream!" but actually what nobody knows is that at night, in my basement, I secretly call a squashed cockroach "chocolate ice cream" and pray to it. We ain't talking about the same thing, and it's utterly meaningless for us to start a "Chocolate Ice Cream Lovers' Club."
If "God" is a "non-human entity far beyond our comprehension" with "concepts of good and evil alien to ours" then how in Baal's name can anyone feel righteous about praising, worshipping and perseverating on it? Whatever "beliefs" they have about it are just trivial inanities that are entirely incorrect and distorted by a puny lack of perspective. In that case, you've preserved "God" as a hypothesis, but entirely divested it of anything that makes it meaningful to the insignificant Earth-creatures that subscribe to it. Religious weirdos don't want a god at all if it isn't "good" in the same way they conceive of it, and if it doesn't intercede in the material world to work its strange designs, and if it doesn't love and care about them, its unworthy creations.