Why I think I'm Qualified To Assess Other People's God-Claims

Sometimes a religious fundamentalist attempts to troll me on the topic.

They might say something like "these are awfully big opinions for a meat-machine" (or for a random convergence of materials). 

However,
that's really just a strawman of what non-God-invokers are saying.


No "atheist" I've ever encountered thinks we are nothing more than the substance of-which we consist. 


Nor do I identity as an "atheist".

However,
most religious fundamentalists will just assume every critic is an atheist.


Why do they assume it?

 Because that's how religious fundamentalists have been trained to to think; by the
cultural warfare-ing,
 politically-weaponized cults
they call "church".

In reality, I am only sometimes an
"atheist" in a general sense. 

Although, I am always an "anti-Theist" about the Abrahamic "God"-concepts.
-just as THEY are always an anti-Theist about all the God-concepts they reject. 

 Now, if my "inner atheist"-voice is correct, then:

 The religious fundamentalist and I ... are both on even ground.

In that case, ...

Their views are ALSO "awfully big opinions". 


In any case, I think it's fine to have "big opinions", if we find ourselves capable of having any;
no matter what we're made of,
and 
no matter how we 'came to be'. 
 
Either way, this nullifies their premise of speaking from a moral or rational 'high ground' over me. 
 Because:
 
Whatever does or doesn't *qualify me* to "assess" the potential merits (or demerits) of any particular God-theory ...
equally does (or doesn't) qualify them too, for that same project. 

If I'm "just a meat-machine", then so are they.

Whereas, I am not "just a meat-machine", then (presumably) neither are they.

Either way, it provides zero opportunity for either of us to posture over the other as more qualified. 

Likewise, ...

If my inner Native American Spiritualist-voice is correct, 

or my inner Stoic-God-ist voice is correct,
 
or my inner "Pandeist" voice, is correct, 
etc etc...

then the religious fundamentalist still never has the opportunity to use my vantage-points against me, because:

 Every God-theory that I humor ... 
automatically applies to them too. 

Moreover, 
 if they humor it too, even for the sake of argument. then they are abandoning their own premise of being on a higher (more qualifying) ground; from-which to make assessments. 

Likewise,
if I humor their view (just for the sake of argument), then:
 I'm still on equal footing,
 because:

 If a Super-Being "intelligently designed" and "personally created me" with the capacity to "assess" the potential merits of God-theories, 
then:

That makes me equally (at the very least)
 as qualified as religious people (generally speaking) to "assess" the merits (or demerits) of every God-theory put to me. 

In that case, a non-God-ist may not "realize" they were imbued with that ability from a "Creator".
But in that case, they'd still HAVE the ability. 

From there, by USING that ability, they might "realize" that the only two rational possibilities are
either: 

a.) Some sentient Being(s) who are EVIL (at least partly evil) created them,

or 
b.) Humans merely evolved naturally from a mysterious impersonal "Source". 

The Stoic concept of "God" is:
 a mysterious impersonal source. 

Atheists just don't call that a "God",
 because:
 
Deities are traditionally:
willful, sentient people; with superpowers, intense emotional fragilities, and personal agendas.

Atheists are people who find the entire concept of literal deities to be ... "in need of" evidence which (so far) has not been provided. 

I (usually) "lean towards" pantheism, or pandeism, Native American spiritual narratives, or Buddhism.

It depends on my mood. 
But I also sometimes also go full "atheist". 

"Not all 
who wander 
are lost".

I "journey".

I visit.

I share.

I rest.

I move on. 

I do not "root" into camps. .



Although, other factors increase my individual ability to assess God-theories.

So then if I do not have a Major Personality Disorder,
but the fundamentalist either:

a.) does have a Major Personality Disorder 

or otherwise
b.) has been trained to emulate Major Personality Disorders (in order to justify a God who has Major Personality Disorders), ..

and if I have a higher ~emotional intelligence~,

and if I have a greater capacity for objectivity,
because my ego is not crutched-and-hostage to any particular conclusions, ...

then I'd be much more qualified to assess the potential merits of any-and-all "God"-claims. .. compared to any "religious fundamentalist" (link).