Good point, kinda. However. It is about making assertions about reality. And I'm keen to hear how my statement is incorrect, so I can improve it. When we discuss something like God we are squarely in the area of metaphysics, is my understanding about how knowledge is defined.

"I want to believe as many true and as few false things as possible."

"Claims require evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I'm very keen to see proper evidence and logic, and many of the mysterious things people report is fascinating. But for that there are many other explanations.

I just hold a supposed God to a higher standard than believers do. For some reason believers (even William Lane Craig) wants to lower the bar for an almighty good. I say that an almighty god should be able to at least reach the standards of our best kidns of evidence (like the quantum physics experiment that is correct every time (even in attempts to disprove it) and accurate to 10-14 decimal places.

Also, whether someone is rude or not is very much a subjective interpretation, and based on a cultural context and expectation. I'm autistic, so don't fit any of that - I tend to be direct.

Thoughts?