Faith is a guess that one chooses to believe. That's a poor way to decide what is true about the world, and definitely not a path to truth. A path to truth should come to a single conclusion by all competent thinkers, just as properly adding a column of numbers produces only one correct or true result for all competent adders. By faith, you can believe that they add up to any sum you care to pull out of the air - which is what guessing is.
This is why there is only one periodic table of the elements, but thousands of gods and religions. Empiricism, or the consulting of demonstrable reality, is the only path to truth, by which I mean the quality that facts possess, facts being linguistic strings (sentences. paragraphs) that accurately and reproducibly map a portion of reality
Faith is beyond knowledge
No, faith doesn't rise to the level of knowledge. It is unjustified belief, and usually incorrect, which is why faith based beliefs like astrology and creationism are usually sterile, if not outright dangerous (climate denial, trusting and voting for a candidate whom all the evidence says is immoral and incompetent).
Ive had it with intolerance towards faith.
I'm not sure what you are calling intolerance. I don't care what you believe, just what you do that affects the things I care about.
But I reject faith-based thinking for myself, and don't have any use for any idea derived from the faith-based beliefs of others.
Today, I read a plea from my wife's niece on Facebook for everybody to pray for a resolution to events in the States. I gave her a like even though she and all of her relatives know I'm an atheist, and even though I consider her effort praying worthless except to comfort her. I count myself better off for not needing that comfort or any other need religious belief fills in others.
no one is really an atheist, all know God is real, but some just hate Him and want to claim He doesn’t exist, for example because they are bitter because God doesn’t act as they want.
Actually, you sound like the bitter one. You clearly don't approve of people like me - atheists.
Nor do you understand us. It is very easy for a rational skeptic and an empiricist to have no god belief (actually, there is no other possibility without believing by faith, which is abandoning the principles of critical thinking), nor hate nor be bitter at any gods. Imagine being told that about your lack of belief in Odin. You really believe in Odin, but you hate Him and want to deny His existence because you are bitter that He doesn't do what you want. If that sounds ridiculous to you, well, then you know how your comment was received.
And your conclusions are typical of the wrong ideas generated by applying reason to faith-based assumptions. You simply assume by faith tat a god exists despite the absence of sufficient supporting evidence (error 1), you assume that even though they say they don't have a god belief that they actually do (error 2), and that therefore we must all be bitter about this god. Sorry, friend, but I just don't want to think like that. It's simply never helpful or useful.
What evidence for God is built on logical fallacies?
Nice to see you here again. I always enjoy our discussions.
The term logical fallacies applies to arguments and the chain of reasoning that connects premises to conclusions. So it is arguments that are fallacious, not evidence.
The error that can be made with evidence is misinterpreting its significance, which is a mistake, but not a logical fallacy.
But every argument for a god is fallacious. I'll give you some examples:
"You can't prove there's no god, therefore there is one" - fallacy of ignorance as well as a burden of proof fallacy.
"You can't prove abiogenesis is even possible" - the other form of the fallacy of ignorance as well as another burden of proof fallacy
"The world is full of art and design, meaning that there must be an artist and designer" - this is a circular semantic argument (begging the question fallacy) and an equivocation fallacy. If a design can only be made by a designer, then you can't call what we see in the world design until we establish that such an intelligent designer exists and is its source. It's equivocation because it uses the word design two ways - any pattern including natural ones, and that made by a conscious designer. Get your target to agree that he sees designs in spiral galaxies and sand dunes, then slip your god in the back door by claiming without supporting evidence (and contrary to other evidence) that all designs need a sentient designer.
"A living cell is simply too complex to have organized itself undesigned and uncreated by an intelligent agent." - special pleading, a form of double standard that allows one to call a cell too complex to exist without an intelligent designer, but gives that intelligent designer a pass for needing an intelligent designer even though it would be orders of magnitude more complex than a cell.This is also a credulity fallacy - "I can't see how that happened, therefore it didn't, therefore God"
"The Bible correctly foretold that the universe had a beginning long before science figured that out" - Texas sharpshooter fallacy, where one overemphasizes the significance of the overlap between the biblical and scientific accounts while ignoring the much longer list of differences.
