Atheism

[SteveII]

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 making a judgement on the quality of evidence and registering that conclusion. Presumably you have reasons why you don't think they are conclusive of guilt. Any reasoning and conclusions are not simply a "lack of belief" as to the question. You made a series of conclusions and believe those conclusions to be true.

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.

You have described an assertion. There is no evidence presented so this is not a useful analogy.

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?

They are no longer assertions. You now have shifted to examination and judging of reasons and possible evidence. If you conclude the evidence is insufficient, we'll, that is a conclusion that has reasons behind it. Not simply a lack of belief or a dismissal of an assertion.

---

---

Follow that through. Why don't you accept the evidence?

Because it's not evidence it's only asserted by the theist as such .

You are completely wrong and believing that is what is going on is nonsense. If there are facts or information to be considered, there is no longer an assertion being made. At its base, evidence is a positive epistemic consideration.  You have made a judgement as to what those facts and information support. You have a belief as to their conclusions.

---

Follow that through. Why don't you accept the evidence?

Because it is bad evidence.

Old texts, flawed philosophical arguments (Kalam, ontological, teleological), personal experience, and all that theists present as evidence, is just not good evidence.

Fine. You don't think they are good evidence. That is not the point. Let's take the easy one: if you say someone's personal experience is wrongly attributed, you have made an assertion because you don't have non-question-begging reasons why their belief is false. 

The same sorts of evidence that you present here to support the existence of your god, you would never accept that sort of evidence to support the existence of a god you don't believe exists.

Muslim apologists use all the exact same sorts of evidence and arguments you use, for the existence of their god. Why is it not convincing when they use it, but it magically becomes convincing when Christians use it?

That's a red herring. I have a hundreds of reasons/facts/data points/inferences/pieces of information that I think Christianity is true and none of them apply to Muslims--some of them being personal experiences or personal experiences of people I trust and believe.

---

---

Follow that through. Why don't you accept the evidence?

Wait for it...different atheists can have different reasons for not accepting some particular evidence as supporting some particular claim.

An my point is that atheists do make claims and hold beliefs about that evidence. Perhaps different claims, but the simple non-belief thing is nonsense.