How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?

[ElementalDearWatson]

A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?

You're right that it's not proof.  Nobody is claiming proof of anything.  But it is evidence.

[OldTrees]

It is biased towards an answer without reason for the bias. Since its bias is unsupported it is fallacious to accept that bias without further evidence.

I don't agree that there is no reason for the bias. 

I tell you that I have an invisible, intangible, inaudible dancing pink unicorn which lives in my flat and brings me ice cream sandwiches in bed.  Are you seriously contending that there's no reason whatsoever to start from the premise that I'm lying, mistaken or deluded?  Or would you accept that starting from the premise that such a being doesn't exist unless there's evidence that he does is a good idea?

Prior to your assertion I would have defaulted to the starting position on the topic.
After your assertion I would evaluate your argument to see if it convinced me to abandon my starting position or whether it was insufficient.
The particular subject matter renders your task of making a convincing argument impossible so I would remain at my starting position.
I see no rational reason to hold either starting position is an inferior starting position.

Either belief or disbelief is valid when there is no possibility for evidence either way. Thus the starting position is acceptable. Thus there is no need to evaluate the existance/nonexistance of each of the infinite things that have no possibility for evidence either way.

I still don't understand how your final sentence follows logically from your first two.

If there is no reason to change ones position without evidence on topics without the possibility for evidence either way, then there is no reason to waste time and effort considering if one should change ones position on those topics.

The existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism.

Yes it is. A theist, by definition, asserts that a deity or deities exist.

A theist, by definition, believes that a deity or deities exist.
Do you mean "holds a belief" when you say "assert" or are you using the common definition of "trying to persuade others this is the case"?

2) God not being necessary is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.

It's not a disproof of anything.  But it is indirect evidence that God does not exist.

It is not necessary for you to be human in order to breathe air. Is this indirect evidence that you are not human?

3) Religion possibly being an invention of humanity is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.

Again, it's not a disproof of anything.  But it is evidence that God does not exist.

Since the invention of religion could happen even if god existed, then religion being an invention is not evidence that god does not exist.

4) You have provided no evidence to the likelihood of a deity other than it is less than 100%*. You did not provide any support for your conclusion that a deity is unlikely.

I have.  And I'm afraid that just stating that I haven't isn't a counter-argument.

The obvious counter arguments are now included. I had expected you to see them upon reflection previously.

5) Something being unnecessary has no impact on whether it exists or not.

All other things being equal, the explanation with the fewest entities is to be preferred.

Misuse of Occam's_razor
It deals with parsimony not probability.

*Actually you merely provided evidence that the likelihood was not necessarily 100%. Existence is binary and thus likelihood for existence is also binary.

Something being binary does not mean that the probability of either hypothesis being true is 50%. 

Binary means:
If X then the probability of X is 100%. If !X then the probability of X is 0%. Binary is 0s and 1s corresponding to 0% and 100%.

2)If John, a theist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then John would be the attacker.
If Jill, an atheist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then Jill would be the attacker.
If Jane, a theist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jane would be the attacker.
If Jonny, an atheist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jonny would be the attacker.
Since John, Jill, Jane and Jonny all attempted to persuade without using evidence, they can be rejected without evidence by Thelma and Theo.

3) Usually there are 2 attackers in an argument and only 1 during proselytizing.

You seem to be talking as if we're discussing a hypothetical argument between two people, rather than what the actual nature of reality is.

Assertions result from someone trying to persuade another person not from merely silently believing something. We are discussing the rationality of assertions and silent beliefs. (You have been reading what I wrote and my replies correct? This should not be a surprise.)

[AnonymousRevival]

A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?

You're right that it's not proof.  Nobody is claiming proof of anything.  But it is evidence.

You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.

[BluePriest]

A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?

You're right that it's not proof.  Nobody is claiming proof of anything.  But it is evidence.

You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.

To further expand, and try and stop a rebuttal  I see coming, you can see an atom with a telescope, but we previously didnt have any way to see them. Perhaps there is a way to see some type of god that isnt normally visible with the standard human perception. Who knows, we may develop god seeing goggles since we have night and heat seeing goggles. People arguing that atoms didnt exist because they couldnt be seen probably felt like fools once a way to detect them was created.

[AnonymousRevival]

We can't really see an atom yet, more of like molecules blurred to look spherical. Up to now the internal structure of an atom is still theorized. And we wouldn't be able to invent deo seeking goggles becuz of we do we become god, being able to see what a god sees.

[OldTrees]

A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?

You're right that it's not proof.  Nobody is claiming proof of anything.  But it is evidence.

You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.

To further expand, and try and stop a rebuttal  I see coming, you can see an atom with a telescope, but we previously didnt have any way to see them. Perhaps there is a way to see some type of god that isnt normally visible with the standard human perception. Who knows, we may develop god seeing goggles since we have night and heat seeing goggles. People arguing that atoms didnt exist because they couldnt be seen probably felt like fools once a way to detect them was created.

This version of god would fall into the "If evidence necessarily would exist if it exists, then lack of evidence is evidence of lack" scenario. Atoms had the same situation until evidence was discovered about their structure and later were able to be seen.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Prior to your assertion I would have defaulted to the starting position on the topic.
After your assertion I would evaluate your argument to see if it convinced me to abandon my starting position or whether it was insufficient.
The particular subject matter renders your task of making a convincing argument impossible so I would remain at my starting position.

And what is your starting position on the existence or otherwise of my unicorn?  And can you please explain your reasoning.

I see no rational reason to hold either starting position is an inferior starting position.

If there is no reason to change ones position without evidence on topics without the possibility for evidence either way, then there is no reason to waste time and effort considering if one should change ones position on those topics.

Your initial position not being logical or rational is a reason to change your position.

A theist, by definition, believes that a deity or deities exist.
Do you mean "holds a belief" when you say "assert" or are you using the common definition of "trying to persuade others this is the case"?

"Assert" does not necessarily mean trying to persuade anybody of anything. 

It is not necessary for you to be human in order to breathe air. Is this indirect evidence that you are not human?

False equivalence.  God, in this instance, is being posited as an explanation for the existence of the world as we currently understand it to exist.  God not being necessary for the world as we currently understand it to exist is evidence against the existence of God.

Since the invention of religion could happen even if god existed, then religion being an invention is not evidence that god does not exist.

No, it is not proof, but it is evidence.  That, say, the God of the Church of Jesus Christ And The Latter Day Saints exists yet mankind only came to know this through the circuitous route of developing the Sumerian and Canaanite religions, from there venerating Yahweh the God of War above the others, this becoming a monotheistic religion known as Judaism, which then became Christianity, from which emerged Joseph Smith's Mormonism, which became the Church of Jesus Christ and the Later Day Saints is less probable than that God doesn't exist and that these stories are just stories.  Especially as we're talking about a God who has no influence on the world whatsoever, which would necessarily mean that he didn't influence these religions whatsoever, which would mean that Thomas S. Monson has ended up landing on the truth by pure chance.

Surely you don't disagree that the probability of someone alighting on the exact truth by chance in amongst a literally infinite number of possible alternatives is infinitely small?

The obvious counter arguments are now included. I had expected you to see them upon reflection previously.

You had expected to say "no you're wrong" and for me to simply agree with you?  Not to be rude, but that's a little ironic, given that you're arguing that one should not change one's position unless given cause to do so.

Misuse of Occam's_razor
It deals with parsimony not probability.

And the parsimonious explanation is to be preferred.

If X then the probability of X is 100%. If !X then the probability of X is 0%. Binary is 0s and 1s corresponding to 0% and 100%.

This is a strange argument to be making.  Obviously something either exists or it doesn't.  But we're talking about assessing the probability of something existing.  If I draw a card from a deck and hold it face down and ask you what colour it is, then the probability of the card being red is 100% if I drew a red card or 0% if I drew a black card, but all you can tell is that the probability of drawing a red card is 50%.  In that situation, were I to draw a card and ask you what you thought the probability of it being red was, would you honestly say "either 100% or 0%"?  Because that's the least useful application of probability I've ever heard of.

Now, leaving aside the cards, what we're assessing is not whether or not God exists, but what the probability is that someone who states that God exists is correct.  This probability is not 50%.  There being 2 possible outcomes does not make those two possibilities equally probable.  If I roll a fair 6-sided die then I can either roll a 1 or I can not roll a 1.  Despite this, the probability of me rolling a 1 is 16.66%, not 50%.

[ElementalDearWatson]

You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.

Atoms are perceptible. 

[ElementalDearWatson]

People arguing that atoms didnt exist because they couldnt be seen probably felt like fools once a way to detect them was created.

If God can be proven to exist, then I will begin to believe in the existence of God.  I will not, however, feel like a fool for having based my thinking on empiricism, logic and scepticism.  I will still be using the same process in my belief of God - believing to be true what the evidence indicates is true.  Why should I feel a fool for doing so?  I would be a fool if I denied evidence in order to reach a conclusion that I wanted to reach, but reaching an incorrect conclusion because of a lack of data with which to reach the correct conclusion?  There's absolutely nothing foolish about that.

[AnonymousRevival]

You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.

Atoms are perceptible.

This is not convincing at all...........

[ElementalDearWatson]

This is not convincing at all...........

What would it take to convince you that atoms are perceptible?  If you believe that they are not, then how do you imagine particle accelerators work?

[AnonymousRevival]

I do believe in atoms. However, if this statement was to argue to someone who is completely against atoms, it would be totally useless.