No reason justifies disbelief.

[Mr.wizard]

@Belaqua

The thing is, if you’re going to propose an alternative method for ascertaining facts about a particular subject, you have to...ya know...describe the actual method, and provide support for how you’ve determined it’s accurate.  Logical arguments depend on the soundness of their premises, and soundness requires demonstration.

Right, logic requires sound premises. People disagree on which premises are sound. 

But I really don't intend to get into discussing the arguments with you. I've done this on various Internet sites, including the infamous The [S]inking Atheist now-defunct forum, and had no luck at all. People get emotional and angry even when I try to differentiate an essential causal series from a temporal one. I don't believe anymore that such arguments can be had on sites like this. 

But I hope we can agree that the premises on which both atheists and believers operate are things that can be challenged, defended, and discussed. That is the point I have been trying to stick to. Just that both sides have reasons, and both sides have a burden of proof. The statement "you have no evidence" is not an unchallengeable statement when 99% of people in world history have thought they had evidence.

Of course you don't intend on discussing the various arguments for god, because there aren't any logically sound arguments, which is the point LadyForCamus was trying to get across to you. If there was a logically sound argument for god you would be presenting it and apologists around the world would be touting it. If you have evidence for god then present it, if you have reasoned argument for god then present it, but don't pretend that  "believing in a magic being" and "not believing in a magic being" are equally rational and reasonable positions.