And now let me try to spell out clearly how I meant that SF analogy to tie in with the God question, and also discuss the specifics you'd asked me to clarify :
When asked if the God question is real, then some God ideas it is easy to firmly say “No!” to. The Yahweh-God, for instance ; and the Zeus-God ; the Ra-God ; the Indra-God ; et cetera.
These God ideas are specific, as well as (potentially) falsifiable. (Well, roughly falsifiable, at any rate.) So, one way to say “No, not real!” to them would be to say “No evidence, so I don’t believe in them.” But another and more direct way would be to actually look at what the Bible and other sources have to say about this individual God idea, see if it might possibly be true, and conclude directly that that idea cannot possibly be true, and thus actually ‘disprove’ that idea. (Using that word “disprove” loosely.) For instance, now that we know how thunder is caused, to say that Thor or Indra hurl bolts of lightning at their rival Gods is plainly wrong, directly wrong.
That’s one class of God ideas. The infantile ones, that are easily “disproven” (if only one takes the effort).
Now let’s move to the next class of God ideas. The ones for which hard atheism simply isn’t feasible, because these God ideas aren’t falsifiable. Take Advaita : simplistically, Advaita posits that there is one single consciousness. That’s all there is, this consciousness, nothing else. This consciousness gives rise, spontaneously, to the entire complex creation. Everything arises and falls within it. Creation roils forth from it, and in Dissolution recedes back into it. And thus the cycle goes on and on and on. This idea of the ancients is quite sophisticated actually, and in a way might seem to pre-empt some of the ideas of modern physics. Nevertheless, I would say this apparent sophistication is merely because this idea is unexpected ; and ultimately, this too is (probably) bunk, this too is (probably) just as fictitious as the more oafish God ideas.
But how, exactly, do we say this idea is fictitious? This idea is not falsifiable. So we don’t really go into right or wrong, because we simply can’t, but instead simply ask for evidence that this is so. And since there is no such evidence, then sure, we simply toss that idea aside as some ancients’ fevered imagination, fueled perhaps by cannabis or peyote or whatever it is they put in their pipes. But we’re strictly soft-atheistic about this idea, never ever hard-atheistic -- simply because this idea isn't falsifiable.
Finally, there’re some God ideas that might actually be true, kinda sorta true (much like SF is sometimes true, that is, certain individual elements within SF might be true). For instance, full two and a half millennia ago, the Buddha spoke of No-Self. He said, apparently from his direct intuition, and wholly counter-intuitively, that our sense of a separate “Self” is merely fiction. It doesn’t actually exist, it is instead an illusion created by our thoughts “arising and falling”. And that is what modern neuroscience appears to be saying, as well. Now does that mean that all of Buddhism, along with the Bodhisattvas and the Dakinis and what have you, are all true? As with SF, obviously not! And yet, this element still remains. (And of course, this isn’t "God" per se. That’s why I keep saying “God idea” rather than God.) But this too is religion, this too is Woo. Except for this small part that is true, or at least half-true, the rest is wholly fictitious. But still, a small portion still does turn out to be true, or at least, to be kinda sorta true. Much like with SF.
Fair? Agreed?
Therefore, if someone asks you, “Do you believe in (the God idea)?”, then, if precision is important to you, precision in terms of what it is you are saying you believe or disbelieve, and if you are aware of these very many diverse God ideas -- and if this question is of any real enduring interest to you -- then you simply cannot respond with a blanket “Yes” or “No”. (If pressed, you’ll say “No!”, absolutely you'll say you don't believe if pressed for a one-word answer. But you’d much prefer being able to give a more nuanced answer.)
You’re atheistic, absolutely. Not a shadow of a doubt about that! You don’t believe in any of this mumbo jumbo, for which no evidence is proffered. Nevertheless, because you are aware of all of these details, all of these nuances, therefore, your particular route to atheism, when it comes to the general God idea, is igtheism. (You say “The question is too general, too vague, and as such does not make sense. But in as much as I don’t say that I believe, sure, you can take me to be atheistic, you can interpret that broadly to mean that I don’t believe.)
Again : much like discussions around intricacies of football or cricket or chess or SF would feel like crazy unproductive hair-splitting to those uninterested in football or cricket or chess or SF, similarly, these nuances about religion will only matter if you’re interested in this idea at all. I myself am interested in these ideas. I’m no theist, not by a long shot, but this idea interests me, fascinates me. If it does not interest you, you are free not to go into this level of detail. Obviously.
That’s about it. Sorry, this post turned out a bit longer than the previous one!
Does this make sense, what I've said in these two posts? Do we agree? Feel free to ask whatever specifics you might wish to ask, I’ll answer as best I can. (After all, this is no more than my own personal POV, and there may well be inconsistencies and inaccuracies there that I am myself not aware of.)
ETA : It appears from David Mo's subsequent post that he'd implicitly been focusing primarily on Christianity all through. I expect that would explain why we'd apparently been talking past each other thus far. If that is how it is with you too, then perhaps you could check out my post #431, just below, addressed to him, where I try to clarify this aspect.
