It is true because you dont understand it

[Edwardo Piet]

His logic is screwey because[...]

My point is that you are saying that if his logic is screwy then 'atheist logic' is screwy...I asked how non-belief in God is 'screwy logic', and you argued back against that. You are making an ad-hom argument, because you are saying that because he is using screwy logic according to you, then that makes the arguments of all atheists screwy...which is a fallacy because, however much you dislike his 'screwy logic', that doesn't make all atheistic logic screwy...just because he's an atheist and you think his logic is screwy, doesn't make atheism's logic screwy. That does not follow. You haven't substantiated your claim that 'atheist logic' is screwy.

Atheist argument relies on screwey logic.. cherry picking as with denying philosophy with science.

(my bolding).

Substantiate this claim. How does non-belief in God make you rely to screwy logical arguments? It's not part of the definition of atheism, which is mere non-belief...so the arguments entirely vary. So please substantiate that claim.

It makes logically sound claims. Other logical claims can stand against it. I have never seen, and you haven't presented anything that comes close.

And I haven't seen any of these 'logically sound claims' you are speaking of.

There is reason and logic in the bible, and it does explain God, deal with reality and it can be studied. You refuse to consider it is because you don't understand the evidence. That's a different thing.

Saying that there is reason and logic in the Bible that explains God, doesn't make it so. I have no idea what you are talking about...where does the Bible give evidence that there is a "God" that exists, and that it is specifically that God?

You say I refuse to consider it because I don't understand the evidence. But that's just from your point of view, and it does no help to just tell me that I don't understand. The fact that I have found no evidence doesn't mean that I don't understand it, it just means that whether there is evidence or not, I...just haven't found any. You think there is evidence that I haven't found, and I think that the reason I haven't found any, is that there isn't any...there's no reason for me to believe there's any, until I know of any.

You say I don't understand. But I say that you have failed to demonstrate such evidence, and I have no reason to believe that there is any until I know of any.

EvF