My argument for atheism +

[Paleophyte]

Evidence: lit trans That which can be shown. As opposed to that which plays epistemological hide-and-seek for no good reason.

I don't think "evidence" means "that which can be shown." It means something more like "what we use to show something."

It is literally translated from the Latin evidentia which means "obvious to the mind or eye".
 

Religious people think that their God has been shown to be real. They accept tradition, authority, revelation, metaphysical arguments, personal feelings, and other things as evidence. So they think that God's existence is a thing that can be shown.

Replace "think" with "believe" and we're in agreement. It's belief because while they believe that one deity exists they do not believe that an army of equally (im)probable deities also exist. Dispassionate application of their standards would result in the belief in a literal host of mutually exclusive deities and theological chaos.

You don't agree with them, and it may be that -- like most people on this forum -- you don't accept those things as good evidence. Most people here are only willing to call something evidence if it is empirical, repeatable, quantifiable, obtained through methodological naturalism, and fitted into currently widely accepted theory about how the world works -- in other words, science. 

If you think that's how I think then you don't understand me very well. Any "deity" that is reductible to empiricism is a pitiful excuse for a god. Quantifiable gods just don't measure up. Give me a Deity that's absolutely baffling, so that it may be worthy of my wonder.

I'm only saying that what you consider to be shown is based on criteria such as these.

It's funny that you'd think that you'd have to tell a sceptic that any given viewpoint should be regarded with suspicion, especially one's own.

You have a viewpoint, and it is not nothing. So when you consider and reject the claims of religious people, you do so based on something.

And knowing that I try to use a variety of relatively objective standards. They aren't perfect but then nothing ever is. An amusing side effect of this is that I can probably construct better arguments for a better deity than most theists can.