Nature of Atheist/Theist Debate

One thing that bugs me to no end is the contrant atheist refrian "there's no evidence for god." What really gets me is people who deride my arguments. I sometimes feel like saying 'yea, but for God arguements they are pretty good." I mean come on, consider what they are. For proofs of nuceal fission they suck. But compared to other arguments for God they are pretty damn good. But I think atheists lose all criticial faculties and in the end are totally unable to think objectivley about God arguments.

I believe that it is not possible to be objective about evidence on a topic like this. Thus evidence is of no abail. We always conscutre evidence in likght of our pervious decisions about God.

There is a point to be made about the glass half empty/full. That usually is taken as donnoting pessimism or opimism but it goes with the atheist/theist debates too. If you can link that to pessimism/optimism I think it might be aprapoe. But be that as i may, the atheis sees the galss half empty, the theist half full. This is not meant in terms of negative/posative or pessimism/optimism but in terms of rational warrant. For the theist the warrant is rational if the chasim that the leap of faith must be traversed is half filled with warrant. But to the atheist the gap, however small, is isurrmoutable. Thus to the atheist there is no ponit in any warrent and the evidence is never adequate. To the theist evidence is more than adquate because they have already made the leap.