Strong Atheism starts from faith

[tavarish]

It's not illogical to consider God as non verifiable.. it's the only logical way to consider God. That all faiths have this basic precept makes this pretty conclusive. If you want to consider a god that is verifiable then that would be an incredibly naive undertaking and pretty laughable to be honest. If your idea of sound logic is that which would have small children laughing in your face then I don't rate your idea of logic much.

If the very basis of something is unverifiable, unobservable, and subjective, it is not based in reality and exists merely as a concept.

re·al·i·ty (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact .

con·cept (knspt)
n.
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.

Since it isn't based in reality, it is safe to say your definition of God is not real.

The point of all major religions is that the choice is left open to you, the individual to decide to believe or not. Without the choice the whole thing falls apart. Like in the Dark Ages, there was no choice to believe.. you either believed or were put to death. You couldn't 'choose' to be a Christian, therefore you weren't a Christian. Belief requires an active choice, and your liberty to make that choice.

It's left open to you in the form of fear mongering and pandering by authoritative figures. Religion works better when there is no choice, the dark ages was quite possibly the best thing to happen to christianity. They were THE AUTHORITY on nearly everything. Society, Science, Politics, Cosmology and Philosophy.

If God was provable then no one would need a choice to believe. Natural laws would dictate what is naturally possible. Any being that developed supernatural powers would simply cause a shift in natural law, demoting supernatural. Only the God we've formulated as humans perfectly trumps all other notions of superiority.

Read above. Your concept of God cannot exist in reality.

All of the 33,280 denominations accept the Nicene Creed. It's what unites us all, and that's the crux of the religion.

Other than Evangelical Christians not accepting it as authoritative because it's not in the Bible. Not to mention The Church of New Jerusalem (A denomination of Christianity) outright reject it.

Regarding me knowing how I know personally how my God is true...

Go on...

I examine and question what I believe constantly and it remains the most logical conclusion. I've studied other religions, beliefs, and non beliefs. I've not believed far more than I've believed. Currently I believe.

It remains the most logical conclusion to believe something to be true on the basis that it cannot have evidence or be based in reality, then make vague assumptions as to how much you can interpret as being literal? Did you hit your head? That is simply making shit up as you go along to form a cohesive belief system. I also want to make it clear that the sole fact that you believe in this does not make it true.

You're not talking about logic here you're talking about a narrow field of logic concerned with evidential propositions. My personal beliefs would be quite different and not shared with millions of other subscribers to my faith. Skepticism is healthy and I certainly try to remain open and grounded.

I'm talking about the basis of judging the world around us to determine what is real,and make a distinction between fact and fantasy. This falls into the fantasy category, as it does not and cannot exist in reality. It's not a narrow field of logic if everything we know to be real is judged by these criteria.

Lastly the Bible is never literal because common sense tells me so. The point of the stories are mostly plain to see. The historicity isn't clear sure, but the historicity isn't the core of the message. A clear perspective on human understanding of God is.

I hope I answered all of your questions/ or you can see my answers to you.

I still don't understand where you make the distinction between metaphorical text and literal text. Are there specific cues? What about those who believe in its entire literal interpretation? Are they wrong?

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? Or can any internal issues be dismissed on the grounds of the "bigger picture"?