Atheism

[polymath257]

To be evidence, it must change the probability of the statement being true one way or the other. What evidence actually makes it more likely that a deity exists?

The existence of 27 documents detailing the claims of members of the first century church (we all know what those claims are). The existence of the first century church. The experiences of millions of people that have been chronicles for 2000 more years and exist today.

None of which is evidence of a deity: knowledge of those historical events doesn't change the probability of a deity existing by one bit.

---

In no way does it contradict itself.

Correct, atheism rejects theism because atheism dismisses theism as inadequate, because theism has yet to succeed in proving any of its assertions. (1)

If there was any real evidence upon which theism could lean, only then would the meme be an assertion.(2)

Yes it does. Two points about your comments. 

1. You have set a threshold for proof. That itself is a belief about where that threshold should be as evidenced by the the fact that billions upon billions of people that have set that threshold somewhere else. So right there you have one belief (claim) that can be scrutinized. 
2. You care confusing the definitions of evidence and proof. Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. It is a false statement to say there is no evidence for God. If there is evidence, then your meme is an assertion. 

---

If there was sufficient evidence for the existence of god, there would be no need for atheism, but of course you prefer to use an apologetic blame wrapped in semantics to cover the fact that theists are prone to boldly misusing dictionary definitions to suit their theistic needs.

There is, in fact, absolutely no "pieces of information or facts" available to prove the existence of god.

I know word definitions are tough and being precise is overrated. 

No pieces of information huh? What about the NT? What about the experiences of billions of people? That is not information or those people are wrong? To say yes is a HUGE claim--a claim to knowledge for which you don't have any basis besides ASSERTIONS--which you meme said you don't make. Hmm...

Go ahead, tell me why these don't count as "pieces of information or facts" and I will show you how your answer is question-begging.

---

Nope because their isn't facts or information merely assertion saying that it is . And yes your making positive claims that have no fact or information they are hollow and no i have made no judgement none acceptance is not a judgement . Nor is it a belief only a lack of belief in the non information and non facts presented. So your ploy has again failed .

FYI rejection can be a passive state rather then a willful judgement

Wow. So you argument is basically

1. The NT, the early church, the personal experiences of billions of people is not information or facts because I failed to believe they are information or facts.


that's it. There is no #2. 

I think question-begging would be a step up from that.

No, they are not information or evidence because the confounds are so extreme as to make the evidence useless for any conclusion.

The experiences of people are evidence only that people have certain experiences under emotional stress. That is an interesting neurological fact about the human species, but doesn't support the existence of a deity.