What is Atheism?

[RoadRunner79]

@ Nonpariel - That's why I call it begging the question. Evidence means that which is evident prior to acceptance. After acceptance it is called 'proof'. If I were an atheist, I would say there is no proof because the evidence does not support that conclusion.

Bullshit, that is not how good logic works. You don't swallow first or assume first. Otherwise I really do own the Brooklyn Bridge and can sell it to you. That last sentence gives you away. You, with out realizing it are retrofitting after the fact, reaching backwards in logic to make your conclusion match your desires. That is what YOU are doing, not us. 

Evidence isn't about favoring anything personal, it leads, and you go where it leads, not to where you personally want it to go. Theists when they cant debunk science, try to retrofit science after the fact to match their own desires. We as atheists are glad you are not an atheist, because you would make a lousy one.

---

Theist logic.

Assume a god first<=insert holy writing, debunk or incorporate science after the fact,<=assume desired outcome

Good logic goes like this.

Collect data based on established method=>insert data into established formula/method, compare with control groups=>Write down your findings=> Hand your findings over to other peers for review whom are independent of you. If they replicate the same data/method and come to the same conclusions after repeated replication, then you are onto something. But if you have a flaw in any part of that process, and they cannot replicate what you handed them, then you need to go back and start over.

I tend to disagree, with a few here; who seem to indicate, that evidence is designated after you are convinced.  This would be opposed to being convinced by the evidence.   I would also agree with Neo (as I see the point he is trying to make), that consequently saying that you lack belief, because there is no evidence is begging the question or at least incoherent with this view of evidence.  This also seems like an odd use of the word evidence, which I have only seen here.

I could be wrong (you and especially Neo may clarify); but, I think that your post here is based less on evidence or reason, and more on assumptions and things not said by Neo.  More of a demonstration really!

Also, ones motivations or personal bias, have no effect on their evidence or reasons given.  The logic stands on it's own regardless of who says it, or why.