Strong Atheism and what it REALLY means to be an atheist

[Relayer]

Oh and hello by the way, I dont think we've met before.

Hi, nice to meet you. Sadly, I don't think you've understood what I was talking about, as demonstrated by the irrelevance of your responses:

With the Christian God, it is either necessary that He exists or impossible. To say that it is possible, probable or even improbable that He exists leads to the conclusion that He does exist. (This is a conclusion of the modal ontological argument.) So it is not a case of probability with the Christian God.

Thats a bit of a reach and one that I dont agree with. There is zero evidence for the god of the bible. I rate scientology as a more viable belief and that religion is laughable. (it gets extra points for positing an alien overlord, rather than anything as hyper unlikely as a god).

Which one of the sentences I wrote are you talking about? Which claim is "a bit of a reach"? What does evidence have to do with anything I said? Why should your opinion about Christianity and scientology be of any interest?

To prove that you have experienced a tree, do you need to prove that a tree exists first?

Well it would be a good start wouldn't it.
Also a thorough and definitive description of the tree would be nice. I note we have a moving target in the nature of god. Just when one aspect gets disproved theists make excuses and shuffle the goal posts.

Are you honestly serious that observation is not the reason that we believe trees exist? Do you have some kind of a priori argument for the existence of trees???

What I mean is this:
You acknowledge in your use of argumentation that things like the laws of logic exist and universally apply. In order for an atheistic worldview to be consistent, it needs to be able to provide some plausible explanation of this. One of the major arguments for the Christian God put forward is the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG), which argues (to put it very simply, and to give only one aspect of the argument) that if the laws of logic exist, then the Christian God exists (equivalently, if the Christian God does not exist, then the laws of logic do not exist). So TAG challenges your assumption that the laws of logic exist.

Utter bullshit of the highest order.

Pleasant. What do you disagree with? Do you disagree that minotza assumes the existence of laws of logic? Do you disagree that an atheistic worldview is inconsistent if it cannot explain the existence of laws of logic? Do you disagree that TAG is one of the major arguments Christians give for the existence of their God? Do you disagree that the purpose of TAG is to challenge the assumptions people make about the laws of logic? And what is the point of your assertion that laws of logic are "physical properties" (leaving aside how bizarre this assertion is)?