No reason justifies disbelief.

[LadyForCamus]

Ah, so then you agree with me that the scientific method is the only demonstrably reliable method we have for acquiring knowledge about reality.  Excellent!  We’re on the same page now. 😏

If you're taking the word "reality" to mean "that which science demonstrates," then science is the only reliable method we have to demonstrate the things that science demonstrates. Whether or not what it demonstrates is reality or not is a metaphysical question, about which you are very certain.

I honestly think you would benefit from an intro course in metaphysics, if you want to discuss it at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

By reality, I mean, that which is real.

You are the one making an assertion that god cannot be detected via empirical investigation; that he is in some other category of real things that are just as real as empirically real things, but for some unidentified reason, not detectable via scientific observation. Your claim. 

So then, when I asked you by what method can one acquire information about the existence of god, you gave me:

1. No answer at all; avoid the question, and—

2. Logical arguments 

to which, I’ve responded several times that logical arguments are not investigative methods, they’re formulas that rely on empirical data, which you already said we couldn’t use to investigate god, lol. I’ve also pointed out that the “God’s” that people think they prove don’t tell us anything about what a god actually is. You have thus far failed to address either of these important points in the discussion. I can only think you’re simply being dishonest.

Also, whoops! You forgot to answer this question for the third time:

You're here, on an atheist forum, challenging atheists to reconsider their "metaphysical commitments". Let me ask you yet another question if I may, since you're presenting your position on the question of the existence of god and other metaphysical truths as completely neutral: Are you also registered to theist forums where you challenge the quality of their reasons for belief in the same way that you challenge our reasons for disbelief, and our judgements of their reasons? That's what I would expect from a person who truly has no inclination on the subject yet, one way or the other, and who is looking to challenge all the information and ideas available before taking a committed stance.