Why do so many people not know the difference between what can be seen and what can be measured/tested?
In the last half hour or so I've seen at least two questions attacking atheists for not believing in god(s). Both questions said something along the lines of "atheists don't believe in god because they can't see him."
They then gave a list of other things that most people haven't seen and said that atheists weren't allowed to believe in those too. (The lists included electricity, my great grandfather, and a human brain).
As far as I know, no atheists has ever said "I don't believe in things that I can't see." I've heard many say "I don't believe in things whose existence can't be justified by testable means." Why do some theists confuse the two?
Are they intentionally equating to different things in order to make their argument seem more forceful, or do they honestly not understand the difference between sight and other forms of observation?
(Ideally, I would like answers from people who've made this mistake before, but I'll read answers from anybody).
r_u_real...: A black hole can be measured and tested by observing the orbits of objects around it.
IWF: It would be a sin if she didn't! =)
r_u_real...: A black hole's gravity affects the objects that are close to the black hole. By observing perturbations in the movements of stars and planets, we can detect a black hole.
If I looked around your house, I would likely find evidence of your existence, even if you weren't there. You're right that it wouldn't prove your existence, (proof is for mathematics, not science) but if I found enough evidence, it would justify my believing in your existence.