My prior isn't enough, sorry, this is just beyond the pale. It's bad enough that you're so cavalier about yourself but you actually expect to get by with that line of reasoning given the prior one? You need your freakin head examined. I'm sorry, I'm done with you. Cause if you actually expect people to be that stupid for you and you're that careless, you need a whoopin and some serious correction on your attitudes.. at least need to discover a topic called ETHICS. Later, I'm off to the store. Perhaps while I'm gone you might discover what evidentiary proof means and perhaps go one better and learn what authority is - maybe even logic. One might hope you could develope a responsible nature toward others as well; but, let's not go overboard. Getting you out of the ranks of a Stalin would be a good starting point. "I said it, you have to believe it" isn't science so you might discover what science IS.
Geez, someone asks you for evidence of a 'soul' and you go ballistic. Guess you don't like being exposed as someone without support for your positions.
So assertions (e.g: "The solar system had a chaotic early history") with data (e.g: craters, asteroid belt, jigsaw-puzzled gas giant moons) behind them are bad because some kind of INFERENCE was obviously used to get from the data to the conclusion. Assertions with no data (e.g: "People have souls") are not only preferable but cannot be challenged at all without sending Havoc into rabies mode.
You mention Stalin. Stalin was an authority. Which is a more reliable guide to truth: authority or evidence? Which is more reliable evidence: witness or replicable experiment?