Arguments about whether God exists -- sorry, which God is that?

In the NYT today, an argument by a believer against Dawkins, the well-known atheist, over whether, in principle, God exists.  See http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/

Wow, what a lot of malarky.

I am, however, charmed at how many people vigorously disagree with him in the comments. It is good that we have such skepticism.

When people argue about whether a God exists, the automatic assumption seems to be the Judeo-Christian God or a variant thereupon. But every so-called argument in favor of this notion is equally true (or nonsensical) about Greek gods, Hindu gods, Roman gods, and the numerous long-gone gods of many cultures past in history. Why do we not argue over whether *Zeus* exists? What specifics about the above arguments would distinguish between a Zeus and a Christian God, or Mazda, or Shiva?

Nothing. The 'best' you can do is argue to a standstill that there *might* conceivably be a supernatural entity out there somewhere, though the only evidence we have of the nature of it is in the assertions of the religious, the "experience of God" of contemporary times -- but not of past times, of course -- none of which makes today's concepts of Gods and religious experiences different from, let alone more plausible than, the concepts of the past.

We are *all* atheists - about *somebody's* god. Few believe in Zeus anymore - why not?  It's not a question of whether you believe in God, which cannot be resolved -- but why, once you've decided to believe in a god, you choose this or that particular one? (And then, depending on which particular god you choose, arm yourself so you can oppressive your neighboring unbeliever.) You don't believe in all nonsense -- so why do you choose this particular nonsense?

What a waste of time and intellectual effort!