Strong Atheism starts from faith

[theVOID]

I view claims about Nature through the scientific method, anything that manifests in nature can be measured and studied, including the effects on our reality by supernatural forces, of which there are none currently testable.

If you have a logical argument, it gets examined like a logical argument... I make sure there are no fallacies or unproved assertions in the premise and see if the conclusion logically follows from there.

If you have changed your position, Void, fine. I can only go by what you say. In the past you have said:

"Oh come on, we both know that the only time progress was ever made in science is when the explanation "god did it" was ignored in favour of digging deeper - setting aside the claims of the bible and the mindset it's based upon in favour of a new methodology for evaluating truth claims, the scientific method." (emphasis added)

This seems to indicate that you are saying that the scientific method is the new methodology for evaluating truth claims. You did not qualify this in any way, i.e., distinguishing questions about nature from other truth claims.

You did notice the first line of that sentence right? "The only time progress was ever made in science. That was specifically about conducting scientific examination without the presupposition of God, it was not about the scientific method being the only method for evaluating truth claims.

1) I didn't make a truth claim

You mean to tell me that the statement "There is no valid logical argument for the existence of God anywhere never has been" is not a truth claim? Considering the context in which you made the statement, I don't know how it could be anything but a truth claim. You made a statement about something, Fr0d0 said something regarding your statement, Evie indicated that Fr0d0 said what he did because you did not qualify it with something like "I think" so as to indicate that it was just your opinion, and then in response to what Evie said, you made the statement. So while I would normally take your statement as just an opinion, the context seems to make it a truth statement.

I apologies if i gave the impression that i was speaking in certainties, that was not my intention. I still stand by the claim that the position that there is currently no valid logical argument for the existence is the only reasonable position.

Look, Either there is no valid logical argument for God or someone has one, but it's being hidden away and nobody uses it, nobody brings it up in debate, nobody else has ever thought of it and there is no way to compare it to an argument that doesn't exist, so lets drop all the fucking assumptions and stick with the most reasonable premise, that there exists currently no valid logical argument for the existence of God.

Or you simply refuse to accept any valid logical argument for God and insist that it is not valid.

I'm sure you want to believe that, it makes it easy for you to reject any opposition to your own views with that mindset, but that is not the attitude i have. I am only interested in the truth, regardless of what it is or where it leads me. If there was a valid logical argument for the existence of God i would be forced to accept it and honestly would have no problem accepting it. I have no vested interest in disbelief.

I don't have absolute certainty that no argument exists, i just don't see the point in beating around the bush because the explanation for why this argument exists and nobody uses is an tangle of unfounded assumptions and hypothetical situations.

See above. Also, maybe you just need to learn how to communicate in such a manner as to distinguish when something is merely your opinion and when you think it is a fact (certainty).

If you're unsure just ask, i usually try to state such things clearly, but considering the remark in question was not part of a debate and rather an assessment of the current state of arguments for the existence of God i didn't really feel the need to qualify my statement with disclaimers.

No it's not, you just seemingly have zero idea what my position is.

Maybe so...but that may be because you do not communicate it very well.

That shouldn't be the case considering all of the discussion we have had prior to now, i have been consistent in stating that claims about nature can be assessed through science, be it evolution of the age of the universe. Perhaps it was due to most of our previous discussions being about nature and science specifically that you have this impression.

I have ZERO evidence for the non-existence of God.
I have ZERO evidence for the existence of God.
I have ZERO reason to favor either position.

Get it?

I get it. You have no evidence for either the existence or non-existence of God. From that you say that you have no reason to favor either position...and yet you live your life as an atheist. So while you admittedly have no reason to favor either position, you do, in fact, favor one of them. Sounds irrational and arbitrary to me.

An Atheist, by definition, is someone who lacks belief in the existence of God, which i currently do. What i do not do, and this i think is where you are confused, is claim that it is certain that God does not exist. Yes i do live life as if their is no God, because i see no reason to have positions informed by a proposition that i do not believe is valid. If you saw no reason to believe that the world was going to live in 2012 would it be irrational to live as if it was not going to happen? Of course not, and my world view is essentially the same, just replace 2012 with God.