Ybe an atheist

[robvalue]

Yes, I gave you my reasons. You can challenge any of them if you want. You can produce a reason I should care, or produce a definition of God that doesn't fall into my three categories. So far, every theist I have talked to has failed on all these counts. I'm not saying with certainty that a theist will never succeed. But until such time, I'm an atheist and an apatheist. I'm quite comfortable with that, and I'm comfortable with other people being theists, whether they have good reasons or not.

If you don't think my reasons are rational, I'm also comfortable with that. You're welcome to say why.

With regard to a generic creator, I'm completely undecided. This is still being an atheist, if you call such thing a god, since I lack belief that it's real as of yet.

So, you believe your view to be rational. And your logical, rational, reasonable reason for being an A is every definition of G you've heard is one or more of the following  1) Incoherent 2) Untestable 3) Relabelling".

Perhaps  you can clarify by giving your definitions  of 1) Incoherent 2) Untestable 3) Relabelling. Oh yeah,  be sure that they are  1) Coherent 2) Testable 3)  and never Relabeled.

No offense, but your reason appears to be incoherent. Aren't you saying your reasonable reason for being an A is justified because you have reasonably reasoned about G definitions?

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote. ~Losty

Okay, I'll go one layer deeper. You're really putting the microscope on the wrong side here, though. We're talking about things people have failed to demonstrate being anything more than imaginary for over 2,000 years and you have a problem with the guy who reserves judgement. A simple example from your side could destroy my entire case.

Anyhow:

1) Incoherent: lacking any useful meaning, or so vague as to provide no substance.

This is, of course, subjective. I'm not claiming to be perfect. I'm responding to reality on its own terms, and the claims I'm given to the best of my ability. I'd be very interested in something actually real here, so it's in my interest to try and fish out anything that could lead to something. If I can't understand something, I can't evaluate it. That's a fact I just can't get around. I always encourage people to explain (as you're doing) and allow them to get around my barriers if they wish.

2) Untestable: lacking a clear criteria by which we could reasonably determine the falsity of the statement, making it true by assumption only. It also makes it an unecessary assumption, since if it affects nothing else we are concerned with in any detectable way, we can ignore it for all practical terms.

3) Not relabeled: a definition which doesn't refer to something else which we already know to exist (trying to infer existence by proxy).

If you're going to start getting me to explain all of these words, then I'm not going to do that. It's up to you to change my mind, and if theism had anything more to it than imagination, then that should be very easy. My evidence that my positional is rational is the continued failure of anyone to provide something for which there can even be evidence (testable), let alone actually providing the evidence too.

Also, since I don't even care even if I'm completely wrong, then I'm really not fussed if I've somehow screwed everything up. I wouldn't act any differently, anyway. I'm not trying to convince anyone else to believe as I believe (or rather lack belief). I don't actually need any assumptions whatsoever, even that "objective reality" is anything more than a mirage. For every "what if..." scenario, there is the coupled "what if it isn't..." and you can't live your life by both rules at once. Since picking one would be arbitrary without any actual reason behind it, I just don't pick at all. I ignore.

I've expanded as much as I'm going to unless you have a genuine further question, so why not throw a definition at me or give me a reason to care? If you can't (or won't even try), then I continue to be confident that I'm doing just fine. I'm 41 now, and nothing that persuades me has ever been presented to me. Maybe I'm totally delusional; if so, I'm doing pretty well against this figment I think. And I still don't care about some being outside my delusion pulling the strings.