No reason justifies disbelief.

[tackattack]

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

Disbelief where the known facts are consistent with with disbelief.  For example, what we know about the universe is very strongly suggestive that the existence of a deity type being is both unnecessary and not factually correct.  Therefore disbelief in that deity is reasoned.

And not one thing I said above is inconsistent with the known facts.

I still don't see how you can have facts about something that you believe doesn't exist. I'm not saying that it's reasoned or unreasonable, just that you're claiming there are facts that are consistent with nothing. Gae had a very humorous and accurate example, neither the shit or the sun rising (colloquially not meteorologic-ally) are facts that support disbelief. They are simply things that are, and without a causal relationship, are indicative only that Gae takes a big deuce and that the sun rises.

Yes that helps. I always saw it as belief is a threshold thing. You either had justification or it didn't meet a level of criteria. If it surpassed your threshold you believed, if you didn't your disbelieved. You make it sound here as if you're positively positing arguments against nothing.

You've it the wrong way round.  You believe when you want proposition X to be true, but you have insufficient evidence to back it up, or evidence shows that it is false.  When you have sufficient evidence you don't believe, you accept.

acceptance was my main point here, sorry if I didn't explain that clearly. I don't think you can actually choose to believe in something without shitty evidence (either against opposing evidence or without). For instance, Brian believes people are innately good. I want to believe that, but evidence just doesn't support that. I could claim that I hope people are good, but then it runs contrary to my evidence. I intellectually can't support the proposition that people tend towards good as a species the majority of the time. I see times when a human's propensity for good far outweighs their bad, but it is an underwhelming minority. Thus, while I want to believe people are innately good; I can't accept the position as true because the evidence doesn't support it. I don't say "I have sufficient evidence to believe people are bad" (even though that is a true statement and the opposite of the assertion), I say "I don't have reason to believe that people are innately good" (also a true statement).

So what is the evidence that God doesn't exist? Or is it simply that the evidence that God exists doesn't meet your standards? I believe is what Belaqua was pointing out.

@fredd bear - thanks I've read them both and am familiar with the fundamentals of reason.