But again, what one considers 'convincing evidence or proof' another does not. So it is still a step of faith.
I've never understood the concept of proof that a deity does not exist.
Perhaps. But there are others who proclaim that the evidences pointed to for evolution prove God does not exist, or that the troubles in the world prove that God does not exist. While you and I might disagree with their stances, it is what they have chosen to believe and no amount of evidence or proof to the contrary will convince them.
But generally in any debate it is the responsibility of the person claiming the existence of something to supply proof.
Ah, but once again, what one person considers proof, another will choose not to accept. Ultimately, we all choose what we will believe.
Does a bartender rely on faith when he rejects the teenage kid's ID as fake? That ID may have been 'convincing evidence or proof' of age to a less experienced bartender.
But there are others who proclaim that the evidences pointed to for evolution prove God does not exist
Like I said, I've never understood that. One simply has to define a deity as being able to set up everything to look like evolution happened. The religious have the advantage in that they get to define whatever they want.
or that the troubles in the world prove that God does not exist
Same there, but that one is because Christians have chosen to define their deity as being all-good and therefore have to do some logical gymnastics that are unacceptable to many in order to get around the problem of all the troubles in the world. It's not a problem with the existence of God, but of the definition.
While you and I might disagree with their stances, it is what they have chosen to believe and no amount of evidence or proof to the contrary will convince them.
Their logic is just faulty for the argument. The problem comes from one side using logic and the other using faith. Those with faith get to move the goalposts and redefine the situation to get around any logic. So those atheists are really fighting a battle that can't be won on that playing field.
Ah, but once again, what one person considers proof, another will choose not to accept.
True, but it does not necessarily involve faith. I'd probably be fooled by the fake ID above, accepting it as proof. But that's just my ignorance.
Now many people do have preconceived ideas, closed minds and/or a stake in the matter, and therefore won't accept evidence because of the larger implications. Those of us who don't accept man-made global warming are often falsely accused of this, and in some cases probably rightly accused. Does this mean we have faith that man-made global warming isn't happening? I think we're looking for ulterior motives, not faith.