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?

[Amarok]

Theist- here 's a bunch of claims and stuff i assert is evidence 

Atheist - Sorry i'm not convinced as this is not evidence 

Theist -That's an assertion you need to back up 

Atheist -No it's not it's me not being convinced as your provided no evidence of your claims 

Atheism is content less an absence of something not based on any assertions but ONLY on the failure of theism to back it's  assertions . No matter what twisted logic theists try and employ to try into a position for their apologetics agenda .

---

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.

I can reject the claim he's guilty without asserting he's innocent

---

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

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

[Simon Moon]

Just because you call something evidence does not mean we view it as such.And again not accepting the evidence is not an assertion .

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.

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?

[Amarok]

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

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

Yup all these fail as evidence and me not accepting them is not an assertion . The theist has failed to make his case for them . All i have to do is point that out .

[johan]

Are you saying there are no "pieces of information or facts" that are available to analyze on the proposition: God exists?

Yes. There is no evidence that god exists.

[Amarok]

Are you saying there are no "pieces of information or facts" that are available to analyze on the proposition: God exists?

Were saying your assertions that it's is information or facts is vapid

[robvalue]

"God" must be properly defined and falsifiable before they can even be any evidence. I don't think any theist has even got that far while talking to me.

[Nay_Sayer]

Just because you call something evidence does not mean we view it as such.And again not accepting the evidence is not an assertion .

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

Why don't you? FSM weaps.

[Minimalist]

Stating that you have no evidence for your bullshit is not an assertion.  It is a fact.  When you can find some evidence* then you can dispute the point.


*  Your fucking bible is not "evidence."

That is an assertion. lol

Your bible is the claim, dumbass. It cannot prove itself.

[Foxaèr]

This is great. Kit actually found a meme about atheism that contradicts itself in just 12 words.

Reject = dismiss as inadequate

Considering the evidence of anything and dismissing it as inadequate for a conclusion is itself an assertion.

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.

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

---

The position that there is no evidence for God is nonsense and those that make it are confusing the definition 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 ranges from probabilistic to conclusive.

Are you saying there are no "pieces of information or facts" that are available to analyze on the proposition: God exists?

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.