Who better understands what evidence means? Theists or atheists?

U & I.

Although I am an atheist, I must say that in my career as a scientist, I have actually worked with some theists who are exemplary when it comes to their personal integrity, and have very rigorous standards when it comes to evidence, just as I have also seen some atheists whom are their equals. The fact is that in both groups there is always room for improvement, and that is the reason that peer review is such an important part of scientific research. No one has a monopoly on the ability to do good work, nor is anyone going to learn anything if they are never allowed to make mistakes and correct them. Truth does not have a prejudice or confirmation bias, regardless whether it is an atheist or an theist who seeks it.

I think it's like asking (in a courtroom) whether the prosecution or the defense has a better understanding of the evidence. What happened to the jury? Where is the unbiased, impartial judge of the evidence?

So I think it a waste of time. Everyone decides for themselves and we all use whatever we like for evidence and what does it matter since it only affects ourselves?

Atheists understand what evidence means better. Evidence is the type of thing that would stand up in a court of law or in a laboratory full of hostile scientists trying to disprove your theory.

Atheist is a word that only means not believing in God and practicing a religion. What they know about evidence is not connected to this. Remember that for every brilliant atheist scientist, you have 10 atheist potheads or high school drop outs who couldn't even spell the word evidence.

That is not really a question that can be applied to a class of people..

Any theist who says there is no evidence for evolution obviously does not understand what evidence is.

Yet

Any Atheist who says there is no evidence for God is obviously does not understand what evidence is.

Be serious, a student majoring in the philosophy of science will spend two semesters just on what evidence is, quality of evidence, types of evidence etc.

Evidence? Evidence depends on perception. When you speak of what evidence means, you have to very precise.

Or you could say evidence is in the eyes of the beholder. Think about that. In a court eye (witness) evidence is the easiest to question.

For instance. Can you prove wind exists without knowledge of fluid dynamics? Not to a scientist. But you can observe the affect wind has on a sail boat and deduce something is causing the sail to bulge and maybe that same thing is moving the boat.

So neither theists or atheists in general could state what evidence is.unless they were trained researchers.

Thus in the Bible note this point made.

"what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them.+ 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made,+ even his eternal power+ and Godship"___Romans 1:19, 20

Do you see the qualifier? Paul used the word perceived. So understanding the reality of God, perception is needed. Direct evidence is lacking because God cannot be seen because he is spirit. So perception is needed. And perception is not laboratory evidence.

Does that lack make God less real? Not at all. The same problem occurs when investigating the reality of life. Life is all around us. But using the rule of evidence can you prove its existence? True, you can name all the chemical elements, proteins, amino acids and so on. But putting them all together in a lab cannot bring forth life. Something is lacking. That lack is God.

Psalm 36:9 tells us God is the source of life. Can't be duplicated in the lab.

Here is sciences best effort to date.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/cra...

The media claim to synthetic life is not true. What the doctor was a ble to accomplish was amazing but it is not synthetic life. He did modify an existing bacterium. by successfully rewriting the genetic code. But life? No

This effort is closer to evidence, but instead of taking God's place as a creator he actually added more credence to belief in God.

So. what is evidence? Whatever is real in the eye of the beholder.

English majors.

Atheists understand what evidence means because we don't live by a god that there is no evidence for. We live by science evidence that we are apes and cone from big bang

I'm guessing atheists, since theists seem to think logical fallacies are evidence.

The legal profession have spent centuries determining what is evidence and what is not. I suggest you check what they say.