Atheism

[Simon Moon]

Rubbish.

There is no assertion required by not being convinced by the evidence provided for a claim.

If I am a juror in a case where I feel the prosecution has not met their burden of proof, in order for me to vote guilty, I am not making an assertion that I feel the accused is innocent.

That is NOT what the meme said. It specifically said 'reject'. So for your example to be analogous, you would say I 'reject' the proposition that the man is guilty (meme: reject what you have failed to prove). If you did, the meaning would be that he is innocent--an assertion. But your analogy actually has another problem: even concluding that the evidence is insufficient is itself an assertion that the evidence is insufficient. 

Which brings us to the broader problem: I think the only way to rescue the idea that atheism make no assertions is there can be zero evidence. But there is some presented, so you are stuck passing judgement on that evidence.

So, lets sat I reject the evidence presented by the prosecution for the man's guilt. I can still find him not guilty, but I am not asserting he is innocent.

As a juror, I am tasked to either vote guilty or not guilty. I am not tasked to vote guilty or innocent.

You are trying to answer 2 prongs of a dilemma at the same time. Which is a logical no-no.

Here's an even simpler example.

Let's say there is a jar with an unknown number of gumballs in it. Without knowing, someone asserts that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar. If I disbelieve their claim, I am not asserting that there is an odd number in the jar. If they made the assertion that there is in an odd number, I would also disbelieve that claim.

Now, let's say they claim to have passages in an old text that they interpret as meaning there is an even number. Or they claim a supernatural being communicated to them that there is an even number. Would I have any more reason to believe their assertion? What am I asserting by not believing their assertion?