Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.
The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.
That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.
Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.
You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.
I don’t know your basis for saying the duck is more plausible. If the problem is the bill and feathers, then maybe the bill and feathers don’t exist. The discussion on pages 27-28 I mentioned is relevant to that point. Flawed conceptions of God are common but don’t demonstrate that God is implausible.
A fairly mild and minimalist god, maybe your watchmaker-style god, is still, in my mind, more preposterous than the duck, even if the duck was blowing a party horn and wearing a fez. Clearly YMMV.
EDIT: Originally linked to the wrong Wikipedia article. What I mean by watchmaker is the God who set the universe in motion and then just walked away, leaving it to its own devices.
I tend to agree with this comparison and had in mind [believers] of that kind of deity as not included in my reference to “most theists” who recognize a deity based on their own perceptions. A God that is not present is like your imaginary duck. That’s not what most theists see as God.
Which is why the duck was set up as the less preposterous example. You start adding new roles for God and it just gets further and further out there.
I’ve never met someone who actually, somehow, thinks that religion is a net positive for society yet has as insulting of an attitude toward the existence of God as you.
Religion is a net positive and God doesn’t exist. That’s really the only two points I’ve made. I’ve actually tried to avoid being insulting, but if people ask what I think, I’m going to be honest with them. I like God. God is neat. You don’t have to be real to be neat.
It’s kind of surreal actually because I’m extremely anti-Christ, anti-religion, and anti-theist in general, but I would never be so absurd as to say that a technicolored duck with party-favors is more plausible than a god.
Once you’ve thrown “setting the universe in motion” on the table, IMO waterfowl and party favors aren’t a very big ask. Again, YMMV.
You call Dawkins an asshole, but even he has more respect for the premise of God than you do.
I call Dawkins an asshole because he insults people, not because he insults God.