An Atheist could say there is no Jesus, no Nazareth, or even an Adam-built Mecca; as there are Atheists who venerate the major religious founders because of their contribution to world history, be it terrific or terrible.

To maintain diversity only this should be an Atheist creed:
-that he disbelieve not just God, but all kinds of supernaturalism and superstition.
-that, if he’s an artist, he’s an aestheticist; if not, he must be very practical.
-that he’s a realist and a naturalist.
-he’s Epicurean.

I don’t thinks it’s possible to do as this author has done and simply postulate “existence” as an attribute to God (which Kant has kindly explained cannot be done) nor any other predicates. What Max seems to be saying is that any God you attempt to disprove God, through reason, will never be a direct reflection of the the God up there (if there is one) as God is simply a diverse concept (concept being a key issue here) and cultural relativism shows everyone has a different opinion as to what/who he, she or it is, and consequently atheism can’t take evidence and claim “this proves God is not omni benevolent” because who’s to say God is omni benevolent at all.

Personally i would suggest the only claim to theism, or knowledge of God, is direct contact with God, experience of him (but for it to be inductively concluded it would have to be STRONG evidence)

Furthermore, i would claim you can’t have ‘in experience of God’ (from an Atheist’s point of view) to claim he doesn’t exist, AT ALL, only that it’s unlikely he doesn’t. Consequently agnosticism (or Max (?)) seems to be suggesting that atheism is not possible, the question of God’s existence can’t be answered through reason, nor can it be completely disregarded through a lack of evidence.

I probably spurting crap at the moment. Most of this site seems WAY beyond anything i can comprehend. :/