No reason justifies disbelief.

[LadyForCamus]

@Belaqua

The thing is, if you’re going to propose an alternative method for ascertaining facts about a particular subject, you have to...ya know...describe the actual method, and provide support for how you’ve determined it’s accurate.  Logical arguments depend on the soundness of their premises, and soundness requires demonstration.

Right, logic requires sound premises. People disagree on which premises are sound. 

But I really don't intend to get into discussing the arguments with you. I've done this on various Internet sites, including the infamous The [S]inking Atheist now-defunct forum, and had no luck at all. People get emotional and angry even when I try to differentiate an essential causal series from a temporal one. I don't believe anymore that such arguments can be had on sites like this. 

But I hope we can agree that the premises on which both atheists and believers operate are things that can be challenged, defended, and discussed. That is the point I have been trying to stick to. Just that both sides have reasons, and both sides have a burden of proof. The statement "you have no evidence" is not an unchallengeable statement when 99% of people in world history have thought they had evidence.

I am not interested in discussing the details of logical arguments either, for the reason I stated above.  You can't logic a being into existence.  You need to define it first, before you get to the work of arguing it exists.  But, I notice you continue to avoid answering my question to you:

If the scientific method is the wrong method for investigating whether or not a god exists, what is the alternative method of investigation that you are proposing in its place, and how have you determined that it's a reliable method that will yield facts and information that accurately reflect reality? Logical arguments do not function as fact-gathering tools. They begin with assumptions that, if sound, will be fact-based, and yield conclusions from there.  I want to know what method of information gathering we will use to try and discover if a god exists, if we can't use the scientific method. If you asked me if I have any trees in my backyard, and if so, what type of trees are they, I would have a way to investigate that. I would go outside, look for trees, take notes on their appearance, color, shape of leaves, any fruit or buddings, color and texture of the bark, etc, and then use that information to answer your question. That's the beauty of the scientific method. If you ask if god exists, and what is he like, how should I go about answering that question without using any tools of the scientific method, and how do I know if the information I gathered is accurate?

I have no burden of proof, as I am not making any claims, and by the way, you don't get to point to people's "evidence" for god, while simultaneously discounting the scientific method, lol.  If you're talking about evidence, you're talking about science.  Wanna take a third crack at it, or...? Lol