In fact, it sort of pisses me off.
I was recently engaged in a debate on Reddit’s ‘DebateAnAtheist’ forum with a person who defined God in a way that made God an incoherent concept. When I pointed this out to him, he actually agreed, saying that God would have to be incoherent to humans. I don’t think he got my point, which is that the concept was logically incoherent; he was describing a god that (by his own words) didn’t exist and wasn’t a thing, but that he still believed in.
If you’d like to read the thread yourself, it’s right here. You may have to search for me (MikeTheInfidel), but if the scores of the various comments are any indication, I’m not alone in my frustration.
This conversation revealed a serious problem to me. Modern “sophisticated” theologians do their best to redefine their God in such a way that it would be totally unfamiliar to nearly every believing person who has ever lived. When you say that, among other things:
… and ask what an objective truth is, and say that fiction isn’t necessarily ‘not true’, and then you say that this is what monotheists necessarily believe about God, even though it’s not at all what I believed when I was a theist, you’re talking nonsense. I don’t care how much time you’ve spent developing your ideas; if your argument consists of nothing but assertions, then all you’re doing is building a castle out of glass and asking people not to swing a wrecking ball at it. Your ideas are self-reinforcing nonsense, built on a foundation of specious bullshit.