No reason justifies disbelief.

[fredd bear]

that's a new one. Please define reasoned disbelief @BrianSoddingBoru4

New?  Hardly. Reasoned argument on the existence of God(s)  has been going on for over 2000 years, long before Christianity was invented. Every argument for the existence of god(s) has been demolished ,using---reason.

Of course, unless he makes a claim ,the atheist need not provide  reasons for his disbelief. That is a common ploy of believers, in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.  It is the responsibility of the believer to prove his claims, not  that of the disbeliever to disprove them..

  For one of the more readable and beautifully  lucid thinkers, I refer you to the writings of Bertrand Russell., especially to his printed essay " Why I am not a Christian".  I also refer to his  famous 1948 radio debate with Frederick Copleton., a Jesuit priest and  leading philosopher.

The topic of the debate is "The existence of God". The specific reasoned argument is that of contingency.

This atheist dis-believes. I do not un-believe. I dis-believe because of the total absence of proof for the existence of; Gods, the soul, after life, Angels, demons, the supernatural, the para normal, fortune telling, dragons, trolls or fairies at the bottom of my garden. BUT I don't know any of that for fact. Such claims are essentially unfalsifiable. Hence, I call myself an 'agnostic" or 'soft  'atheist.

A simple example is "Russell's Teapot"

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and has had influence in various fields and media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot


((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk78E


Copleston–Russell debate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Copleston–Russell debate is a dispute concerning the existence of God between Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell in a 1948 BBC broadcast. The debate between Copleston and Russel would typify the arguments presented between theists and atheists in the later half of the 20th century, with Russell's approach often used by atheists in the late 20th century.[1] The debate centers on two points: the metaphysical and moral arguments on the existence of God.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copleston%...ell_debate



PS: IF you are seriously interested in learning the basics of reasoned discussion, there is no better place to start than Plato. Two thin volumes ;  "Crito" and "The Republic" (Plato  was not an admirer of democracy,)  These two books are  commonly found in first year studies of philosophy at Universities.