Don't be silly: as I explained in my earlier post the absence of methods suited to investigating religious faith-based claims, and/or the dependence on fallacies, justifies my noting that religious faith involves beliefs that are unjustified. All you need do now is produce a methodology for investigating the supernatural without straying into fallacies so as to justify your faith-based beliefs - and we'll all be falling at your feet.
On you go!
No my position is that there are no knock down arguments on either side, science has nothing to say in support or against atheism or agnosticism, and you guys, when it comes down to it are just absence of physical evidence is evidence of absence.
Now can you or can you not justify your assertion that faith is unjustified belief?
I think the trouble is that you don't want to put up anything that constitutes any justification for your beliefs about faith for fear of the Emmental nature of them.
I recall here one or two who a few years ago cheerfully and unashamedly announcing loud and proud their physicalism and naturalism but nobody is keen to now because they were treated to some refutations...................
Does that explain your reluctance to make justification?
