Choosing a faith

Like anything in the past.
We may not be able to find evidence, or perhaps we can.Maybe there's a note detailing exactly what he was feeling and why he committed suicide.
Maybe he was very close with his wife and therapist and was denied assisted-suicide from the government and it's clear he decided to take matters into his own hands anyway.There can be lots of evidence on why he committed suicide.
Or none.None of this points in the direction of a God in any way.Just like finding a gucci bag in the middle of the jungle.
There might be lots of evidence why it's there - like flight overhead reporting a malfunction and lost luggage. Or, perhaps there is no evidence.Regardless - a gucci bag in the middle of the jungle does not support God existing.
Regardless - a man committing suicide does not support God existing. "I simply see that the most likely cause for the fact that gravity exists is tiny angels push things together. Of course I don't have any hard evidence but I do contend that it is the most likely answer."And reality disagrees with you.We have massive amounts of evidence showing us that objects with mass attract each other - simply because that's how things-with-mass work. No support for any God included.We have massive amounts of evidence showing us that we can rise above selfishness due to natural processes and evolution. No support for any God included.You can "see" or "contend" or "desire" or "want" or believe" or "need" the answer to be something else as much as you'd like.
It doesn't make the evidence go away.
It doesn't change reality.You're paddling upstream... not only are you missing your paddle, you don't even have a boat!Your ignorance of the knowledge we have on the situation doesn't lend credence to your position. It just shows that you're going to believe whatever it is you want to believe instead of following the truth we've learned about reality. Which, really, puts you in a majority position. But, again, that doesn't change reality either.

I don't assume such a thing.
Beyond that - I think that anyone who assumes such a thing doesn't know how Science works and what it's good at.However, Science certainly is our currently best known method for finding answers about reality.
If anyone uses any other method for identifying answers about reality - they really need to answer "why would you do that?" Especially those who use other methods that are specifically known to be very bad at identifying answers about reality.What should be noted is that "currently-best-known-method" is not the same as "the best there is or ever can be."
Really... this shouldn't have to be noted, as that's how english works... but, well, it seems like it needs to be noted as per your quote above.In fact, I still think Science is a rather poor method for knowing things. There isn't even a way to know you're right!
But... getting "closer and closer" to what's right is what Science does... and it's been doing that really well for hundreds of years... and blowing away all the other methods that have been used for thousands of years.It's results are impressive - in a comparative sense.
However, in an "overall" sense - it's results are still lacking.I don't think any serious "searcher of truth" thinks assumes that "examining the material will always ultimately provide an answer to the problem."
I think that people see the results of science and assume "If I want to know something about reality - I should probably use our best-known-method-for-identifying-reality." Do you have this same problem with God?
Do you have this same problem with dirt on the bottom of your shoe?
Do you have this same problem with rain?
Do you have this same problem with the birds of spring?
Do you have this same problem with streams?
Do you have this same problem with rocks by the side of the road?My point is that if there is anything else at all that you don't have this same problem with - it's more a matter of personal consistency within GDR than it is a problem with evolution.If you do happen to have this same problem with everything including God Himself - then what makes you think it's actually a problem and not just something wrong with the way you think about things?

It doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about.That's not what those words mean. And nobody thinks that.

I think you're stuck in the issue of "knowing things 100%" - this is a problem with philosophers who do not understand how reality works.
People being affected by this problem seem to think that if "any doubt at all" exists - then we "don't know what's going on" to a level that is unreasonable considering how much we do know about "what's going on" according to the evidence we do have.The thing is - we don't know anything at all 100%.
We don't know gravity 100%.
We don't know our own parents 100%.
We don't know our own thoughts 100%.
We don't even know if we exist at all 100%.Nothing. At. All.Of course, none of this stops us from learning what we can, doing what we can based upon that knowledge, and growing our knowledge in areas where it's lacking.We know quite a bit about how gravity works, enough to do some pretty amazing stuffs - even if it's not 100%
We know quite a bit about our own parents, enough to have some pretty amazing experiences - even if it's not 100%
We know quite a bit about our own thoughts, enough to live some pretty amazing lives - even if it's not 100%
We know quite a bit about our own existence, enough to flourish into a few billion of us all over the planet - even if it's not 100% And you're wrong.
I mean - you can believe or contend or whatever else you'd like to call it. It's equivalent to contending that the 'best explanation' for gravity is tiny angels pushing everything together.Can't prove it wrong - but all the evidence we have shows us that it's wrong. It's not required, and there are natural-explanations that do explain why it is that way much, much better. Tiny angels explain nothing. "External non-material influences" explain nothing. This is also wrong.This is like saying we can only surmise why gravity acts the way it does.True: We do not know 100% everything about gravity.
Also True: We have massive amount of evidence that show us why gravity acts the way it does and we can explain almost all of it.
Most likely true explanation: Gravity is a natural phenomenon that occurs naturally.
We have a ton of evidence on how gravity works and saying we can only surmise about why it's that way is a ridiculous falsehood and only put forward by the ignorant attempting to protect their own fears on identifying that reality may be different from their beliefs - ie "Flat Earthers"True: We do not know 100% everything about the evolution of humans.
Also True: We have massive amount of evidence that show us why humans evolved the way we did (morality and social integration included) and we can explain almost all of it.
Most likely true explanation: Human evolution is a natural phenomenon that occurs naturally.
We have a ton of evidence on how human evolution works and saying we can only surmise about why it's that way is a ridiculous falsehood and only put forward by the ignorant attempting to protect their own fears on identifying that reality may be different from their beliefs - ie "Anyone saying that morality could not have evolved"

By taking the information we have, testing it against reality, and growing our confidence in results that are always repeated.
This allows reality to define itself, rather than letting our ideas attempt to define reality.It's not a secret - it's our best known way to identify reality.
It kinda sucks - because you never get to know when you're done "getting closer to the truth" (there's no answer book to reality to just look up.)
But, it's waaaaaaaaaaaaay better than any other known method like "looking at a religious book" or "see what others seem to think" - which are known to almost always give wrong answers about reality.Getting closer to the truth about reality is waaaaaaaaaaaaay better then simply being wrong.

"I contend that tiny angels pushing things together is a far more reasonable conclusion than gravity, although not 100%."Feel free to continue with your contention.
The evidence shows otherwise for gravity, and equally so for human development without any external influence. It's the same evidence.
Life exists at all because life developed as shown by the physical evidence.
Just like rocks roll down hills at all because gravity developed as shown by the physical evidence. "Why do our perceptions of gravity exist at all, as opposed to how all the evidence explains gravity in that way?"
Our perceptions of gravity exist at all because of all the evidence we have to explain gravity in that way.Our perceptions of the world and our lives exist at all because of all the evidence that life and the world evolved the way it has.You're dismissing the answer the evidence points to for no reason and insist that something else must be at play... without any evidence.We've looked - it's quite possible that we did find evidence that our perceptions of the world and our lives exist due to external influences beyond our current ability to identify. This would be things like massive gaps in our knowledge that don't make any sense according to our current paradigms. That is - all the vast amounts of evidence we have would seem useless for any attempts to explain such gaps. This situation did exist 100 or 200 years ago.But - this situation doesn't exist anymore.
After looking more and more and more... we do see gaps in our knowledge - but they are very small, and easily theorized to be a part of the same natural processes we have vast amounts for. There's nothing that looks like it can't fit in. There could have been (as there was hundreds of years ago) - there just isn't anymore.100 years ago - your claims had some merit. There was lots we didn't know.
But now - it's over. Your claims have been checked, and they're just wrong.

Same as you: None.Which is why there's no sense in making up a God to "solve" the question.
It makes more sense to use the information we do have (that God does not exist) and extrapolate that into this unknown area.If new information becomes known - then we look at it and see if the idea needs to change or not.That's how people who prioritize truth proceed.People who do not prioritize truth seem to think that having no information is a good place to create ideas from their imagination - even though this has been shown to be incorrect pretty much every time we eventually do learn additional information.Neither of these methods is "right" or "wrong."
They are just different methods for dealing with situations where no information is available.One aligns with prioritizing identifying the truth of reality.
The other aligns with prioritizing personal preference over identifying the truth of reality.

I don't know.
But it has.
And it didn't need any external intelligence.From here, we know the truth could be:Maybe there's a reason and we'll learn it one day.
Maybe there's a reason and we'll never learn it.
Maybe we already know the reason and some people say we don't just because they don't like it.
Maybe the reason is the same as what the evidence shows us it is. There are 3000 blades of grass in one square foot of my lawn, and 3001 in the next square foot - that is: "this is the way things are due to the natural processes that occur that no intelligence controls."
Maybe the reason is "a cosmic pool game is being played and we're the result"
Maybe the reason is "Odin did it"
Maybe the reason is "God did it"We know that if we want to prioritize identifying the truth - we should follow the evidence.
We know that any imaginary-only (not linked to reality in any way) idea is just as good as any other - highly likely to be wrong.

Only if you mangle the word to unrecognizability.What we have is a bag (the answers to reality.)
And we're learning of the things in the bag.Every time we don't know something, and we go into the bag and learn what it actually is - we find that it's a green circle (natural explanation of natural processes.)
Some people say that red squares (God is responsible) are in the bag, but no one's ever seen one, not in thousands of years of pulling green circles from the bag.We have millions and millions and millions of green circles we've pulled from the bag.
Questions on evolution, morality, space, gravity, the water cycle, weather, diseases, viruses, measurements, material hardness, combustion engines, airplanes, computers, electronics, paintings, clay pots, modelling, accounting, finances, fashion, vision, smells, tastes... anything and everything we've ever encountered in reality.Why questions (especially why questions,) where questions, how questions, when questions... all the questions possible.Producing nothing but millions and millions and millions of green circles from the bag. Over and over and over again. Day in, day out.
Doesn't matter who goes looking (American, European, Asian, Indian, Inuit, Japanese, old, young, wise, foolish...) anyone who looks for an answer about reality, and is able to find one they can show to be true... always pulls a green circle.We have one more question, just like all the others, where we don't have an answer (right now.)
It's another "why" question... just like the millions of other "why" questions that have been answered with green circles.I think the answer is going to be another green circle.
Because all the answers have always been green circles. The evidence shows us that only green circles exist.You think the answer is going to be a red square.
Because, to you, "it makes the most sense."And you call the reasoning for both of our answers: "belief."Yeah - nobody's buying that.Again - this isn't a convince you or convince me thing... this is simply me telling you about reality. You can either look at the evidence yourself and see that I'm not lying about it... or ignore it. It doesn't change reality. It doesn't change the evidence.

My view is based on anything at all that can accurately describe reality.
Right now, the only thing we know of that does that is evidence.
I'm open to you showing me anything though, if you know of another.It's not my fault that only green circles (natural processes) come out of the bag.
But I will be honest about the fact that this is what's happening. Scientific evidence answers the exact same questions.
You, specifically "you - GDR," have a subjective response where you don't like those answers and "don't accept" them.You not accepting what the evidence is showing us is not the same thing as the evidence not answering the question. No, of course it wouldn't.
However, we can look at the rest of the world and see that the answer to "why does evolution occur at all?" is: Because this is the universe we find ourselves in and when replicators replicate - evolution occurs.Just like "why do rocks roll downhill?"
Because this is the universe we find ourselves in and when rocks are dropped they roll downhill.All you're left with is "why is this the universe we find ourselves in?"And the answer is: We don't know. Perhaps it has to be this way. Perhaps we'll never find out. But all the evidence shows us that the answer is NOT "because God made it this way." Because the evidence shows us that God does not exist in order to do anything at all.

It sounds like you don't understand the difference between "all there is" and "all we've been able to identify so far." One is honest - and the other makes claims that we're unable to know.No one knows what's in the bag, so you don't get to say such a thing about us only being able to get green circles.Magic could have existed. Perhaps we pull a yellow star from the bag.
But we investigated... nothing but green circles.Dinosaurs could have existed. And they did. More green circles.People living to 300+ years old could have existed. Perhaps we pull a purple moon from the bag.
But we investigated... nothing but green circles.God can exist - we could see a red square. Just haven't seen one yet.
We see many people draw red squares, and claim they've pulled one. But each one turns out to be a fake.With nothing but green circles so far. Yes - it is beyond 'subjective' to think the next question will result in a red square. But it isn't subjective at all to think the next question will result in another green circle. That's just following the pattern. I think you do understand this - you're just trying to say anything at all to make it sound more "even" when we both know it's not. My point is that the answer to "why did the rock roll down the hill?" can be "a quake, a shifting in the earth, a shove etc and on top of that gravity" - which are all green circles. After millions and millions and millions of questions being answered with nothing but green circles.
It is most definitely an evidenced reasoning to hypothesize that the next question will also be answered with another green circle.To call such a thing an "unevidenced belief" is beyond silly. It's leaning into being willfully ignorant.

The atheist doesn't have to believe, though.You don't have any red squares.
The atheist has millions and millions and millions of green circles of evidence showing us that life is a result of natural processes. So - it's quite possible to have natural-processes be the answer to "why" questions about the universe we find ourselves in.
Not only that, we have millions and millions and millions of "why" questions answered by natural processes (green circles.)
And not a single answer for anything at all (why or when or where or who or what or how) answered by any religion of any kind (red squares.)Looking for a red square is based on belief.
Expecting another green circle based on the millions and millions and millions of previous green circles indicating that the next answer will also be another green circle - is based on evidence.Basing our answer on belief is historically known to be wrong almost every time.
Basing our answer on evidence is historically known to be right almost every time. But, that didn't have to be the case. We don't know what's in the bag. It's quite possible we investigated the sun and found Apollo pulling it across the sky (would have been a red square.) It's quite possible we investigated the global flood and found that it's true and we all share heritage from the new starting point after the flood and this is impossible without divine intervention (would have been a red square.) It's quite possible we investigated the exodus and found that it's true and that manna really did fall from the heavens due to divine intervention (would have been a red square.)Then, we would have investigated the material world and found non-material answers.But - this didn't happen.
We went looking for red squares. But found nothing but green circles. It's evidence that red square don't exist, and the only think that exists is green circles.