What counts as evidence, then?
I take it you mean empirical evidence? But all empirical evidence of the senses has to be interpreted to draw any conclusions from it, by use of our powers of logical reasoning. In practice we also tend to employ a great many assumptions. What I am saying to you is that the existence of physical material substance as the basis for all phenomena is such an assumption that we owe to times far past but we still cling to even after science has rendered it untenable, because, as you say, modern atheists reject the alternative a-priori as "irrational" despite the fact that it is the only explanation that remains that makes any sense.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 6 Oct 2011, 1:40, archived)

The belief in the existence of an ultimate creator who we can't see, hear, touch or feel; who is everywhere and nowhere all at once; who knows what we're thinking and can judge us for it is an explanation that makes sense?
Would it not be more reasonable to just admit that we don't know some things and perhaps never will?
( mike woz ere 7442200 & 7696970 getter, Thu 6 Oct 2011, 1:44, archived)