You choose to believe some evidence and reject other evidence yet when creationists do the same, they are called stupid, ignorant, etc.
I'm not "ignoring" anything. It is simply a fact that there is no evidence establishing the existence of God. There are phenomenon that people find to support the notion, but the phenomenon, themselves, are objectively devoid of any theological significance.
They are only considered evidence by those who are of that religious persuasion already. Hence, appeals like, "If you only open your heart to God, you'll see evidence all around you," which, translated, really says, "If you already believe, you'll see confirmation of your belief in the facts of existence." The belief has to precede this so-called "evidence," as shown by the fact that each religion points to essentially the same set of phenomena as "proving" their particular religion, showing that none are objectively supported.
This is not how evidence is evaluated and validated. Please stop spreading these misrepresentatinos.
yet when creationists do the same,
What creationists do is *not* comparable to how evidence is validated in science. It is a gross misrepresentation to call these two very differing methods "the same".
they are called stupid, ignorant, etc.
When the shoe fits, yeah -- as it does far too often.