I've tried to disabuse him of this. Anyone else want to try? ;-) He said:
You make the epistemic claim:
A1 "There isn’t enough evidence to positively assent to that belief."
or the historical claim:
A2 "Religionists have not produced the evidence to believe."
A in both cases is in conflict with non-A, and therefore excludes it. A1 and A2 are also both universal claims to know what you can't possibly know. That kind of sweeping claim makes more sense on theism, in which God could presumably reveal it to you, than on atheism, in which you are just one, subjective, biased, brain in a skull with a few cords sticking out, like billions of other such brains, evolved with an eye to reproductive success, not truth. Link