Agnostic: a pointless term?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Still falls upon them to prove that god's existence.

If someone says the universe is god, fine, I can dig it. But given that the definition of a god has always been an intelligent entity of supernatural power and otherworldly presence, then such is what I shall always view it as. If someone calls a tree a god, it's still a tree to me, and a tree to the definition of the word. Someone wants to make subjective definitions on their own, fine, but it doesn't mean I have any intention of entertaining every last individual's fickle whims. Such a stance is likely to be viewed as me being an asshole. If so... Oh well.

I wouldn't disagree.

There was a girl who joined AF.com a few years back who defined her god as the rain. I couldn't deny that 'rain exists', however there was no reason to believe that it was either sentient or indeed a 'god', even taking the ill-defined normative imagination of one as a given.

As a side, I also dislike the use of the word 'deny'. It insinuates that the god (however defined) is given but is rejected for a given reason. No god's have ever been demonstrated, so saying one 'denies' them is absurd. Much better to say one denies the claim being made by the claimant.