What else would people say during sex, then?
Anyhoo, the definition of the word "god" actually is pretty well agreed on: "Whatever you think the driving force in the world is." People don't feel like they're watering down the definition, then; they're being very literal when they refer to God, even if the God they believe in seems more nebulous than YHWH, and you can't really take them as the "deviation" from the fundamentalist standard unless you are implicitly suggesting that the fundamentalist standard is the one everything should be judged by in the first place.
*looks at empty bottle*
"Bastard! You consumed God! He was supposed to consume you!"
See above.
People are fighting over "ownership" of the word "God."
Just like Christians of all denoms are today (and, actually, for the last 2000 years) fighting over ownership of the word "Christian."
I just tend to see it as "believer in something divine" or "non-believer in the divine" (or "believer in no divine").
Although that's simply an opinion of yours (i.e., your assess of the content of other people's beliefs, you couldn't prove anything), I agree that it's bs to demand that other people disprove us or prove themselves in order to have validity. Why does anyone have to prove anything at all, short of when faith starts to get invasive into the lives of others? In general, since none of us can prove diddly, it doesn't make sense to make our own judgment the standard that others have to meet ... although somehow we have to reconcile that with the idea that our faith guides our choices and is generally what we use as a basis for life (i.e., part of the evaluation criteria).
So it seems to demand both an acceptance that we do give our own opinions more credibility and live according to them and evaluate other opinions by them, while at the same time a humility that we really can't prove anything that we believe and so it's really about our own personal faith that we share rather than impose.
lol, you know how to sweep an intellectual gal off her feet.