Indeed, I brought them in, because I think those things are relevant. I think the Western philosophical tradition of secular people dicussing theism is omitting, or outright dismissing some things which are actually crucial to any meaningful discussion of God.
Refutability and believability cannot exist outside a person's mind. It's only a person who feels they have refuted something, or who believes something or finds it believable.because as far as I can tell it is utterly irrelevant to the issues I discussed as quoted above, namely the philosophical matter of the difference between (1) refutability versus (2) believability.
The Western philosophical tradition of secular people dicussing theism is trying to take the person out of the consideration, is trying to approach the issue of faith and belief (or disbelief) in God in an entirely impersonal, apersonal manner, as if we'd be discussing ontological issues pertaining to tables and chairs.
Yet existing theistic traditions always taken the personal route; it's always the person who needs to have faith in God, who needs to convert, etc.
The Western philosophical tradition of secular people dicussing theism is either ignoring this, or is merely trying to discuss a god of its own making, a strawman.