The lack of evidence for the existence of God is one of if not the weakest reasons or reason to be an atheist.

Unless you're agnostic, atheists believe that the gods of theism DON'T exist based on......no evidence.

But in the same breath look for evidence that they do in this why agnostics are more rational because they require more to be swayed. Atheists only require partial input.

This is why the reason of no evidence known, not no evidence period or absolutely but no evidence known to us that these gods exist is not substantial as in comparison to agnosticism.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Often times in which you described, there are life experiences and emotions that sway us. Hence atheism, theism, deism.

It's very little to do with a thing called evidence at all.

Agnosticism concludes that there is nothing for or against as a non biased response.

Just speaking about your personal religious experience, more than likely something in that triggered to where you have swayed today.

Someone with the same could have been swayed the other way.

It wasn't a matter of proving or disproving anything. There's no sufficient basis either way you split it.

I'll add this last thing to end off this round.

In speaking with an atheist that made the claim without evidence by the way, the bible is false.

I asked what the evidence was. He said it is impossible for people to resurrect. Then he said along the lines based on the resurrection in the scriptures, it was highly UNLIKELY. Which now changes the scope of it ultimately refuting himself not truly having evidence at all.

So the basis of atheism has a very thin ground to stack anything up with.

I yield.

People in the comments, just take notes and you'll learn something.

"Atheism, properly defined (I know you like your personal, incorrect definitions), is not the claim that no gods exist. It is the rejection of the claim that gods exist due to insufficient evidence. That keeps the burden of proof where it belongs, on the person making the claim."

The atheist that makes the claim "no gods of theism exist", is the burden on that atheist to prove that so that anybody else including another atheist doesn't reject due to no evidence provided?

Answer that for me.

"Agnosticism does not compete with this. It concerns knowledge, while atheism concerns belief. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, meaning they do not claim certainty, they simply withhold belief until sufficient evidence is provided."

Hmmmm....say that again .

"Agnosticism does not compete with this. It concerns knowledge, while atheism concerns belief"

So if all I care about is knowing something, do I require nothing but evidence to know it as opposed to belief where I'm more willing to accept something without necessary evidence?

Answer that one for me as well.

" “No evidence” and “no evidence known to us” are functionally identical for rational belief. We can only evaluate claims using available evidence. Appealing to unknown evidence does not justify belief, it only delays it."

Making it nice and simple. So..... another question.

If I have evidence that you don't have...yet.... does it not exist to you or does it absolutely not exist at all?

"Your resurrection example fails for the same reason. Calling something “highly unlikely” based on established biology is an evidence-based judgment, not a concession. Impossibility claims aside, extreme improbability is sufficient to reject a claim until strong evidence overrides it."

Ok I'll ask you this question by what you just said to see if you're going to be sharper than that other person.

If you're waiting on evidence to override, would this not mean said subject in question has not been proven false?

"So the position is consistent: without sufficient evidence, belief is not justified. That is not a weak foundation, it is the standard used everywhere else."

But yet don't require evidence to override the stance of the negative and the standard is not applied.

I don't see how that is consistent at all.

We're not talking about rejecting claims. We're talking about what has been proven false period. If said subject has not been proven false, you can choose to believe or disbelieve or be undecided.

But the strongest position is the side of evidence. The only sides that contain that is the proven true/proven false side. That's all. Has to be one of the two. With having one equates to the other having both.

Your reasoning for rejection or acceptance will never ever be as strong as a complete proven stance .

"Again, lack of evidence for a God is the preeminent and strongest reason for atheism because without evidence, there is no rational basis to accept the claim at all."

It's the most common. But not the most strongest because there's no evidence that the gods of theism don't exist to accept the claim that they don't.

See it swings both ways. We need something that doesn't swing both ways which is just plain agnosticism that ONLY takes evidence.

Just agnosticism period. By only taking evidence, you can't fall into either shallow parts of the spectrum not suffice for the most consistency.

I rest my case. The opposing side done turned coward.

Do I beats 'em up that bad?

Like Sonny Liston not coming back out the corner to get knocked back down again.

The opposing side got knocked down and is deciding to stay down.

Right, stay down . Don't get back up.

I rest my case.

Everyone, take notes on how to run off cowardice. Just like that. When I move they move, when I move you move .... just like that.

Case closed.