No reason justifies disbelief.

[LadyForCamus]

@Lady Camus

"Because 'nothing' is logically impossible as a state of being, by its definition."

I'm not sure I understand.

My understanding is that a logical impossibility does not necessarily refer to reality. It's also an unfalsifiable statement, as much as is the existence of god.

I don't believe in gods, and a bunch of other things, including my survival after death, due to a lack of empirical proof..    I can't prove that, nor do I need to, not having made  claim.

Are you saying that individual oblivion is a logical contradiction, or simply that  the absence of an undefined 'something' is a logical contradiction?

I don't understand how to relate your claim to my reality .  

My position is summed up pithily on a  Roman tomb on the Via Apia not far from Rome:

" I was not
 I was
 I am not
 I don't care"

I only had a year of philosophy. Never came across this notion. Just as well, it's doing my head in

Could you possibly explain the basis for this claim, and why it matters, in that it is unfalsifiable ?

Plus, of course the method you used to arrive at such a conclusion.,and of course what makes your inference true.

I'd be most grateful if you use small words; I looked this up on Wikipedia, and couldn't follow the language.

Apologies, Freddy.

Allow me to explain.  I didn't do a very good job the first time. It's kind of a hard thing to communicate, not because it's some highly complex concept, but just because the vocabulary is clumsy:

Theists often ask, why is there something instead of nothing? Let's break this question down a little bit. It could be worded like this: "why are we in a state of things existing, versus a state of no things at all existing?" My response is, what possible state could be a state of no things existing? By it's very definition, any state that is any kind of thing, is some thing.  Do you follow me? A state of non-existence can't be an alternative to a state of existence, because non-existence can't be anything.  If there was nothing, instead of something...then it wouldn't be nothing, would it? It would be something. Even saying, "instead of something, there was nothing, is logically contradictory. "Was" is a tense of "being".  Like I said, it's kind of convoluted to describe, or maybe I just really suck at it. Probably the latter. But the long and short of it is, we are in a state of existence because there is no logical alternative. “Nothing” was never an option, therefore, reality exists because it has to. 

I don't know if I've cleared my position up, or hopelessly confused you, lol. If its the latter, I apologize. Benny could probably do a much clearer, and more succinct job! Bear in mind, this is all just philosophical, mental masturbation. I can't demonstrate it. It's just something I think about.