Two main disciplines: mathematics and logic, operate completely on epistemological, not empirical grounds. Without these two, we wouldn't be able to categorise and systemathise (let alone solve many aspects of) science.

If that is important, then you should be a Mormon by now or whatever comes around the corner. So, why don't you follow Joseph Smith? 

You're lumping belief in revelation together with naivité. The Catholic Church doesn't just accept any testimony of a revelation for fact. There are in fact criteria that need to be met, just like in empericism for one to be accepted.

In my case, I don't accept Joseph Smith's revelations just like I don't accept Muhammed as a prophet. Of course, that doesn't mean that Mormons and Muslims can't hold their believes.

Cool.  So the god you're proposing seems really improbable to me, so I will not take it for truth. 

If it's improbable to your empirial standards, by all means, you're free to believe or not believe what suits you (within you local laws and within rational reason of course :) ).

You mean this? 

https://de.scribd.com/document/90613528/Criteria-for-Recognizing-True-or-False-Private-Revelations

I know where this conversation is going and I am already bored by the next answer that you could write. 

So, because I simply don't care what the church thinks of revelations, as much as you do the same for all the other religions out there, I will end the conversation here. The church doesn't have the monopoly on the decision of what is true or not. It's pointless to argue about it as well as it is pointless to argue wether Joseph Smith read from some golden plates or not. It all ends in special pleading. I just don't want to go the path only to confirm it. 

If it's all pointless to you then I will end this pointless conversation as well.

Nope! Not in the slightest.

My father in law is a priest though so he's tried for a long time but he's given up by now hehe

If it helps people in any way, I say let them believe in whatever they want to believe. No harm in that.

The most useless thread ever going nowhere, how surprising.

Being rational is to throw away baseless assertions which cannot be tested via the scientific method even after being given thousands of years to try. (That's religion in-case you aren't aware.)

No. That's not how it works. That is not logical.
Religion made the assertion that God exists, the onus falls upon them to prove it, Atheists aren't obligated to disprove it.
You are trying to use circular logic (A typical Theistic trap) which is a logical fallacy.

Otherwise I can assert the claim that I ride a Kangaroo to work every day... And if you don't have Evidence to the contrary, then it must be true, right?

However... The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory has shown that as science continues to progress, that theistic perspectives will continue to wane.

False.
The Theory of Evolution has given us a fantastic perspective on how life has continued to progress on this planet.
But if we go farther back... Abiogensis is the leading theory on how life came to be on this planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

If we go even farther back, the Big Bang theory describes how this Universe came to be. - Which also has supporting evidence, namely the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

All religion has to support their God hypothesis is a book written by man, which holds many claims that come into conflict with scientific evidence.
So one perspective relies on "faith". - The other has evidence or is gathering more evidence and is happy to say "I don't know" if they don't have evidence.

False.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

Correct. But only if they make such a claim.
I am not making that claim, I am claiming that the burden of proof hasn't been met by Theists after thousands of years (So they have had plenty of bloody opportunity!) and thus can and will discard their theistic claims as utter rubbish.

Hows about adding something that is actually constructive? ;)