If you are vague enough, you stand for nothing, and if you stand for nothing, then you can, of course, pose as standing for everything. While you also have nothing to defend, and can, perhaps, get all the votes. It is an old trick the Nazis like Goebbels and Hitler, for example, played well. Today, you talk to the unions about workers rights, tomorrow, you tell capital about restricting union power to promote free enterprise. In both cases be really vague, and just use the common scapegoat, ( The Nazis used the Jews of course. ) to make it look like you are not actually being deliberately vague, by giving a few token specifics.
Yet today, do you see the same ploy being used in in religion ? Especially by the "spiritual" none denominational, relativist, and religion as interpretation, and god as metaphor, movement.
But we all hate materialists don't we ?
Is god a metaphor? To protect this poor imaginary being some of his followers have even placed him in another dimension. Poor fools. This puts him in a realm where none of us could have ever known anything about him in the first place.
In the end it does not matter in the least whether god exists or not, because god's existence would only make a difference if god communicates with us. A deist god who exists outside of the material universe, and does nothing more than perhaps watch, affects nothing. The real question is not, does god exist, but do any of the religious messages come from beyond. And given the poor quality of most religious messages, I think that it is safe to assume, that they are not from an all knowing or even a reasonably intelligent god.
?
I am sorry. It is hard to get complex ideas into short posts, but please get from it what you will. It may only speak to people who have listened to and read a lot of religious apologetics, then you will hear the familiar voice perhaps.