Strong Atheism starts from faith

[rjh4 is back]

I view claims about Nature through the scientific method, anything that manifests in nature can be measured and studied, including the effects on our reality by supernatural forces, of which there are none currently testable.

If you have a logical argument, it gets examined like a logical argument... I make sure there are no fallacies or unproved assertions in the premise and see if the conclusion logically follows from there.

If you have changed your position, Void, fine. I can only go by what you say. In the past you have said:

"Oh come on, we both know that the only time progress was ever made in science is when the explanation "god did it" was ignored in favour of digging deeper - setting aside the claims of the bible and the mindset it's based upon in favour of a new methodology for evaluating truth claims, the scientific method." (emphasis added)

This seems to indicate that you are saying that the scientific method is the new methodology for evaluating truth claims. You did not qualify this in any way, i.e., distinguishing questions about nature from other truth claims.

1) I didn't make a truth claim

You mean to tell me that the statement "There is no valid logical argument for the existence of God anywhere never has been" is not a truth claim? Considering the context in which you made the statement, I don't know how it could be anything but a truth claim. You made a statement about something, Fr0d0 said something regarding your statement, Evie indicated that Fr0d0 said what he did because you did not qualify it with something like "I think" so as to indicate that it was just your opinion, and then in response to what Evie said, you made the statement. So while I would normally take your statement as just an opinion, the context seems to make it a truth statement.

2) You don't use the scientific method to assess logical arguments!

See above.

Look, Either there is no valid logical argument for God or someone has one, but it's being hidden away and nobody uses it, nobody brings it up in debate, nobody else has ever thought of it and there is no way to compare it to an argument that doesn't exist, so lets drop all the fucking assumptions and stick with the most reasonable premise, that there exists currently no valid logical argument for the existence of God.

Or you simply refuse to accept any valid logical argument for God and insist that it is not valid.

I don't have absolute certainty that no argument exists, i just don't see the point in beating around the bush because the explanation for why this argument exists and nobody uses is an tangle of unfounded assumptions and hypothetical situations.

See above. Also, maybe you just need to learn how to communicate in such a manner as to distinguish when something is merely your opinion and when you think it is a fact (certainty).

No it's not, you just seemingly have zero idea what my position is.

Maybe so...but that may be because you do not communicate it very well.

I have ZERO evidence for the non-existence of God.
I have ZERO evidence for the existence of God.
I have ZERO reason to favor either position.

Get it?

I get it. You have no evidence for either the existence or non-existence of God. From that you say that you have no reason to favor either position...and yet you live your life as an atheist. So while you admittedly have no reason to favor either position, you do, in fact, favor one of them. Sounds irrational and arbitrary to me.