Which version of "god" that people actually worship do you find difficult to deal with?
Hello, kellyb.
No, none of this is in the least “difficult to deal with”.
However, not all God ideas can -- as I was pointing out to JoeMorgue -- be dealt with in the exact same way. Different God ideas call for different ways to deal with them.
Some, like the God of Thunder, are easily disproved (in as much, that is, as science can ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ anything). Some others, like the Abrahamic God of the Bible, are less easily disproved, but nevertheless, with some effort, it is possible to show up their flaws. For Gods like these, hard atheism is a perfectly reasonable position to hold.
There are other God ideas, like the Advaitin Brahman, for instance (which holds out a simulation-theory kind of scenario -- or perhaps you can think of it as a Berkeley-ish idealism, although these ideas predate Berkeley by at least a millennium, perhaps more), or, to take another example, the alleged Theravadin jhanic experiences and ‘levels’ of existence (which latter isn’t exactly a God, but it’s religious nevertheless, and points out supramundane, supranormal states of being, hence my preference for the term “God ideas” over “God” plain and simple), that cannot, as far as I can see, be disproved at all. Not directly.
But yes, given that no objective evidence is available that support these ideas, soft atheism is a perfectly valid response to these ideas (even as hard atheism is simply not valid in these cases, not if one wishes to be reasonable and rational).
In other words, soft atheism is, given what we know today of the multiplicity of actual God ideas as well as the evidence for them, always a valid stance. While hard atheism, although valid for certain God ideas, is not a valid stance for some others: so that hard atheism, generally speaking and as it applies to God ideas in general, is not a valid position to hold. As a general stance that would apply to all known God ideas, then, soft atheism is reasonable, while hard atheism isn’t.
And I was further pointing out to Skeptic Ginger that her decision/conclusion that there is to be no further enquiry about God ideas basis her evaluation of such God ideas as she might have studied, while perfectly valid, is a purely subjective and personal decision. If she imagines that this pronouncement of hers is objectively valid, just because she herself finds it agreeable, then she is simply conflating the subjective with the objective (an error that theists are very commonly given to, but evidently some atheists also fall prey to this kind of foggy thinking).
what reason, we must disprove this one thing, that no gods exist. If we don't then we must accept all these apologies from critical thinkers with that proverbial god belief blind spot. Faith-based, spiritual, non overlapping magisteria, whichever name fits the apology du jour, apply it to escape confronting what is so obviously fiction masquerading as some separate but equal truth.