I do not believe, though I respect religious people. However, I don't have respect if they try to shove it down my throat (this doesn't include debates, I mean an out of the blue, inappropriate, proselytization) or if they act out against others because of it (
cough lgbt rights cough).
If the god in question is a non-intervening deistic god, that is entirely unfalsifiable, the most
reasonable route of action is to take a null position. What this means is that if someone claims that this god does exist, we can reject their claim because it is without evidence, and if someone else claims that this god does not exist, we can also reject their claim because it is without evidence. This god is unfalsifiable by definition, and we should take the most
reasonable course of action, which is to not believe that it does exist or that it doesn't. Though, this logic is not exactly the same when dealing with gods of different definitions. If one was to claim that a god exists that created the universe 6000 years ago, there is evidence against such a being existing due to the extremely
extremely overwhelming amount of evidence that reveals that the universe is much older than 6000 years.
A god as defined by an entirely literal interpretation of the bible cannot exist, due to the extraordinary amount of evidence (which is still an understatement) that directly contradicts the literal interpretation of god in the bible. Those who are reasonable should accept this.
There are many different definitions of god, just within Abrahamic religions, that cannot be covered in one book, let alone one post. So I'm not even going to try and start with that.
I have laid out my thoughts on this subject though, specifically on both extremes of the definitions (non intervening deistic vs literal christian interpretation).
This thread is good sooooooo.....