No reason justifies disbelief.

[Belacqua]

If there was a logically sound argument for god you would be presenting it

You're calling me a liar here. I don't want to go into the arguments because people flip out. I've tried many times. 

I am not claiming there is a logically sound argument. I have said over and over that I am not aware of why some of the arguments are unsound. I asked one guy a day or two ago, and although he had asserted confidently that a certain argument had been completely refuted, he preferred to insult and refused to explain. He refused to accept the burden of proof for his assertion. 

For some reason no one called him out on that. 

If you have evidence for god then present it, if you have reasoned argument for god then present it, but don't pretend that  "believing in a magic being" and "not believing in a magic being" are equally rational and reasonable positions.

I've never been interested in the "magic being" concepts of God. Those are what Blake calls Nobodaddy. The God of Plato, Aristotle, Gregory Chrystosum, Dante, Boehme, Blake, and others is very different. It's been difficult for me to talk here about any version of God that isn't Tyrant Sky-Daddy, because that is what anti-religion people here like to talk about. 

By the way, did you see my question before? You asked about why you would have a burden of proof in rejecting an assertion, and I asked if you had any reason why you rejected that assertion.