I’m sorry, moretap, I don’t understand what you are arguing. In particular, this:
[quote author=“moretap”]The definition of the atheist’s god is, “non-existent.”
... is false.
A “definition” gives the meaning of a term. Most atheists I know (including Harris, Dawkins and myself) define the term god as the omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good creator of the universe. I have said this many times on the forum.
What the atheist says is that nothing with this description or definition exists.
Now, we can deal with the other definitions if you like; some of them are incoherent (e.g., god is “incomprehensible”), others questionable. But the definition I gave, above, is the standard theological definition of god.
Now, as to your other claim:
[quote author=“moretap”] The problem with saying that the atrocious things are just clearly evil from looking at them is that just because something seems evil for humans to do it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are evil for god to do.
What does it mean to say that god is “perfectly good” if good for god is something completely different from what is good for humans? What does it mean to say that god is praiseworthy if good for god means murdering innocent children?
This is just a misuse of the term “good”. It is equivalent to denying that god is perfectly good.
We might just as well say that god is omniscient, but to “know” for god means to be able to eat cheese. So when we say god is omniscient, for him that means he eats cheese. And to say he’s all powerful, for god it means that he’s my uncle and lives in New Jersey.
So god is my uncle who eats cheese and lives in New Jersey.
One can’t just go about changing the meanings of words to suit oneself.