Can you explain how the origin of the word would even disprove that there was no entity they believed they were worshipping?
And now we're back to a negative proof fallacy. I can't prove that they weren't worshiping this entity by name, the same way that I can't prove that, to paraphrase two demonstrations of the fallacy, there aren't invisible pink teapots orbiting the earth. What I can say is that there's no actual evidence that they were worshiping an entity called Baphomet, given the great deal of academic and contextual discussion around the issue and the suspect absence of any worshiped entity called Baphomet actually being recorded to have existed, and I can say with complete conviction that such an entity, if it existed, which there is no proof that it did or ever has, would not have borne any physical or spiritual similarity to the "Baphomet" you see referenced in discussion of the NWO conspiracy theory and Bohemia Grove, which is a combination of Eliphas Lévi's Sabbatic Goat and Aleister Crowley's mystical spiritualism, both of which came some 700 years after the initial use of the word.
The origin of words could be anything but it doesn't disprove the existence of what ones' might've called the entity they believed in.
Please employ Occam's razor for once in your life, and stop trying to rely on a negative proof fallacy to support the tattered remains of your argument. If you prefer to put your faith in a completely valueless assertion with no evidence to back it up despite the existence of perfectly valid, rational hypotheses presented by subject matter experts, then be my guest, but trying to use fallacious logic to question the conclusions of people far more familiar with the subject than yourself and effectively claiming that you're right purely because no-one has definitively proved you wrong strikes me as a bit silly. And by "a bit", I really mean "exceptionally". We go back to the pink teapots example. I don't have to disprove anything; the onus is on you to provide proof that such a deity may have existed- and by proof, I mean something actually academic, properly referenced and sourced from an individual with a clear authority to speak on the subject, and to be honest something which isn't contradicted by all accepted understanding would be good too.
And also aren't you atheist? You believe all deities are fictitious in the first place so no matter whether people really believed they were worshipping a deity you're still going to call it fictitious.. lol
No, because unlike you I'm capable of discerning between recorded belief systems and pure invention for political purposes. Whether I believe in the deity in question is immaterial; Odin and Thor don't cease to have existed in recorded religious history just because I don't believe they existed in real life, do they? Of course they don't, that would be absurd.