For me the real issue is not whether theistic or deist gods exist or that they may possess supernatural influence...it's whether the person who holds such a belief if challenged can justify their position given that their belief stems from within themselves, begging the question..why the need?
The claims of theists or deists re the workings of their gods,influence and requirement of obeisance or you will suffer by punishment of death or that your crops will fail are imo reasons to confront and demand evidence for such given that many people past and present have been killed,punished,ostracized made to feel unworthy because they are seen to have failed to meet whatever the human brain conceived gods standard is.
The absence of such a god ( as in non existant in a particular scenario) is really irrelevant. To call oneself an absentheist is as relevant as saying..im an absentoxygenist because oxygen is absent in an experiment with certain gases. The oxygen may not be present in the experiment but proof can be provided that it does exist outwith,whereas to say god is absent but still not be able to provide proof that said being exists outwith the subject which prompts the condition of its absence is surely a misuse of the word and is irrelevant in a discussion of the existence of god or gods (outwith mans perceptions of themselves as gods or physical forms of gods or idols )which are supernatural and of which there is zero proof