standard of evidence

[bennyboy]

no it's not. believing a proposition is false without evidence is just as bad as believing it's true without evidence. likewise, believing it's irrational without evidence is just as bad as believing it's rational without evidence. if there's no evidence for or against a proposition, both claims of knowledge are equally plausible and the most rational position is neutral skeptic or ignorance.

You're missing an important point. The entire world, and our experience of it, are taken as important sources of evidence. If you say a super-kind loving God is watching over me, then I'll look around and see suffering, and conclude that the God isn't very effective at watching over people. If you say your super-kind loving God is all-powerful, then I'll look around and see evil in the world, and decide that your two statements are incompatible with each other. EITHER what you've said about God is false, or God cannot logically exist, based on the evidence of my mundane life.

Now, if you want to talk about a Deist God, i.e. a universe-creating entity, that's different. But you don't get to build a bridge from a philosophical creative entity to Sky Daddy.

---

I'm starting to think that many atheists have a fear of discussing anything but specific evidence for god...

I'm starting to think you have a fear of discussing anything but specific evidence for the purple space monkeys in my dresser...