Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Neo-Scholastic]

You are missing the point. In practice, "no evidence" really means "the evidence presented does not support the conclusion." Theists can present all kinds of evidence. Some evidence is very poor, like seeing the face of Jesus in a Pancake or "the Bible sez". Some are better, like fine-tuning or just the fact that science works. Evidence means that which is evident, a simple observation. it's evident to anyone that the pancake looks like Jesus but for most people that's no reason suppose a miracle happened. It's evident to anyone that the physical universe appears to be designed but whether or not that is actually so requires careful study and thinking. Design evidence is something a reasonable person could accept even if ultimately it's not correct.

Now you may think you have knock-down objections and refutations for why every piece of evidence (that which is evident) doesn't support the proposition that god exists. And you may be right. Does that mean that all of them are equally unreasonable? I don't think so. Shouldn't you hold the person who justifies their belief on something plausible in higher regard than another who justifies their belief with blind faith? I think we should. The tooth fairy comparison basically says that every justification is faulty (that's fine if you believe that) and they are all silly (a step too far.) I don't think it is too much to say that what someone believes and why he believes it reflects either positively or negatively on him. Saying that someone hold's silly beliefs for stupid reasons is an indirect judgement of that person.