Why do you not believe in God?

[Skepsis]

I would contend that ironically the burden of proof is yours if you say that we ought to rule out God.

And you would be wrong.

Is that not a positive claim?

No. It's called the "burden of proof".

Because in one instance I don't rule out a hypothesis without verbalizeable evidence doesn't mean I am committed to ruling in others without verbalizable evidence.

What are you talking about?

1. There is one instance where I don't rule out a hypothesis without evidence
2. Therefore I must not rule out every hypothesis without evidence to not be a hypocrite

This is a blatant strawman. When did I ever even hint at taking this position? Never did I say that I am discarding unfounded beliefs to avert possible claims of hypocrisy.
Now that I give it a moment of thought, I can see why you might have thought that I made a positive claim when I used the phrase "rule out".
I didn't mean rule out in the sense that such a claim couldn't be true, be in the sense that one shouldn't believe.
Yes, if I am making a positive claim, it is undoubtedly that you ought not believe a proposition if that proposition is without evidence.

By this logic it would seem that police are committed to ruling out as a suspect anyone who they cannot prove did the crime. It is, I have heard, for this reason, a principle of criminology that the absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.

Yes, you misunderstood me. This makes it clear.
However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It isn't proof of absence, but it is surely evidence that the thing in question is more likely not to exist.
This isn't so much logic as it is common sense.

I don't consider God's actions as beyond my wildest imagination and one similarity doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

Yeah, theists imaginations have to be large proportionally to accomodate for their God and their lack of brain cells.
WAIT. STOP THE PRESSES.
Did you just admit that the both of them share the attribute of lacking evidence?
BREAKTHROUGH!
...But, I feel that you simply don't understand simple logic and/or made a mistake while typing. Probably.

It seems very circular to me what you are doing. God is a crazy idea therefore God is a crazy idea.

Where do you get this stuff? Another blatant strawman of my position. I never said that "because santa is a crazy idea so is God", I compared Santa to God in the sense that neither are evidenced and both perform acts that are, to put it conservatively, extraordinary.
I used Santa because, even if he didn't create a universe and everything in it, at least he can fly around the world. This makes him a good candidate to illustrate why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Personal accusations don't get us anywhere.

Neither does strawmanning my position, but you do plenty of that.
Besides, at least I feel as if I am making progress- even if I am merely beating my head on the thick wall that is theism...

I think he meant that your God has too many specified qualities that conflict with reality to be believable, not that specificity is a trait of things that are unbelievable.

I disagree.

With what? That you God falls too far into the realm of specificity to hold onto its existence, or that my assessment of his quote was incorrect?
Your God falls to the axe of specificity just as every God before him.
The creators of Yahweh made him too powerful and kind, so he doesn't fit in a world of death and suffering.