Atheism

[SteveII]

This is for those who always assert atheism is something it isn't.

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.

[Simon Moon]

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.

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.

[purplepurpose]

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.

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 to vote guilty, I am not making an assertion that I feel the accused is innocent.

Basically atheism says - we don't know?

[SteveII]

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.

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.

[Amarok]

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.

Nope there is not assertion in not accepting a assertion because it has yet to demonstrate itself .

---

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 to vote guilty, I am not making an assertion that I feel the accused is innocent.

Basically atheism says - we don't know?

No that would be agnosticism . Atheism is concerned with belief not knowledge .

[johan]

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.

Agreed. And zero evidence has been presented. Hint: Just because you claim something as evidence doesn't automatically make it so.

[Whateverist]

This is for those who always assert atheism is something it isn't.

Atheists however assert a lot of things all the time. And when they do, isn’t it easonable to ask why they believe that?

For example I'm an atheist who asserts that Trump is an even bigger disaster as a president than he is as a human being. Did you want to ask why I believe that? I assume you realize that what I believe about Trump and pretty nearly everything else is independent of my not believing gods have any existence independent of the people's heads who believe in them. Can you think of anything which all atheists must believe in common based only on our not believing in gods?

[SteveII]

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.

Agreed. And zero evidence has been presented. Hint: Just because you claim something as evidence doesn't automatically make it so.

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?

[Amarok]

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.

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

[SteveII]

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.

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?