an atheist here made a good point... sometimes things look more like they are 'consistent' with God theory, rather than 'evidence for' God theory. any time you see evdience for God, ask if it would be better or at least possible to not call it evidence but merely consistent with God theory.
there's lots of philosophic arguements for God. id group those with things like casuality arguments and design arguments. the thing about these is that there's at least plausible arguments that can be made that are counter those. so it's easy to just call these consistent with God and not evidence.
then you get into more science type arguments. the most straight forward way of looking at these, is that they are in fact evdience for God. things that look like supernatural healing. atheists usually become theists during NDEs. something impossible happening with healing it looks like, and we dont see that as far as we know coming from atheists, we dont see impossible looking healhings from atheists. and it's almost never the case that theists become atheists during NDEs and NDEs are objectively evidence for the afterlife, so it's at least realistic to say it's also evidence for God.
with that said, if you have a dark heart and mind, an atheist could say there's no evidence for God with these scientifc things. you could say we only have confirmation bias that healings that look supernatural happen, or that theists only assume those things only happen to theists and not atheists. they make a big assumpion that impossible looking things happen to atheists, but we'd have to admit it's possible and just not reported. and, as far as NDEs, the conventional wisdom is that NDEs are subjective and influenced by the mind... so even if NDEs are objectively evidence for the afterlife, it's also possible to say visions and thoughts of God are merely produced by our psychology and not signs of an objective reality
with all this said, even if they could plausibly say there's no evidence for the God, atheism still lacks common sense.
-i think there's too much emphasis in NDE research on saying their experiences are based on psychology... it looks more like objective things happen, and any deviations are misinterprataions. for example, christian NDEs are common, but hindu NDEs are just the experiencers interpretation... at least there's not enough deviant types of NDEs to say it's all psychology based.
-when healings that look supernatural happen, it still looks like impossible things are occurring. you can try to rationalize it, but that's what it looks like.
-to say humans are merely flesh robots is riduculous. it's obvious we are more than robots.
-there's no explanation that we know of that can explain how life started on earth, or how something as complicated as human consciousness occurrs. there's theories, yes, but they are weak from atheists on the common sense level.
-even if there are counter arguents for the philosophic arguments for God, they are at least formidable and strong, and help explain the God theory, at least if the God theory is in fact true. eg, causality or the argument from design
