I will consider any evidence. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I think this is no different that any one of us.
So frankly I don't think you are one who would accept whatever evidence would be presented which might cast doubt upon your own pre-conceived notions of morality and theology
Is this about me and reading my mind or about the statement you made regarding the inevitability of genocide in non-theological morality?
If you think I will not accept your evidence then why do you post to me with an either or matter-of-fact statement that you are not prepared to defend?
Evidence consists of facts not opinions. I don't know what you mean by "It doesn't mean I have to agree with it". Now maybe you won't agree with my analysis of the evidence, but in regard to the evidence itself, there is nothing to agree or disagree unless you want to doubt the very existence of the evidence I would present.
So I am not asking what evidence you will ignore, I am asking what evidence you will "accept". In other words what kind of evidence would it take to prove my assertion if I could prove it by the evidence you demand?
Tell me that, and I will strive to produce the evidence that will prove my statement. If you are not willing to indicate what evidence would convince you, then what is the use in anyone trying to prove anything to you?
You are a skeptic. That is fine. But if you want someone to prove something to you, you will need to specify the type and level of proof that will convince you. Otherwise we are just wasting our time here (which frankly I think we are).