"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[RoadRunner79]

Speaking of unsupported claims, this is one. There is certainly nothing you could reasonably have gathered from this forum to justify you thinking that this is 'what an atheist usually inductively reasons'. The usual reasoning, as you will have encountered repeatedly here is 1. I do not know of sufficient evidence to justify belief in God. 2. Therefore I do not believe in God.

Excuse me for inferring from the usual level of animosity on this site against anyone who believes in God that it is not a matter of "you are wrong/stupid/brainwashed/clueless/liars...". While there are exceptions, this is the prevailing attitude here. In my opinion, your mild " 1. I do not know of sufficient evidence to justify belief in God. 2. Therefore I do not believe in God. " does not justify the animosity, so rather than just think that many of you just lack character, I reasoned that many of you believe with near certainty that you are right and I am wrong.

At times psuedo skepticism seems more apparent.   I often look at how someone handles evidence, how they handle similar evidence in other areas, and how they support their claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

Denying, when only doubt has been established
Double standards in the application of criticism
The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim

He characterized "true" skepticism as:

Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found

Skepticism isn't saying anything one way or the other.