What stuff do you believe in even though you dont have evidence and are atheist? I believe in aliens and some sort of afterlife. I also believe theres a 4th density that has different laws of physics. The 4th density im talking about is not about time. I believe theres alot of stuff the universe can do that would seem supernatural. I believe in magic and supernatural like powers that humans arent capable of.
Actually I think the attitude that we should be nice to each other just because we happen to share a non-belief in God is one of the things holding the reason-based movement back.
To make an analogy, if we were on an anti-sexism forum and someone said "Geez, it's sure nice to be among fellow anti-sexists who think men and women can be treated equally and should unite... that way we'll have an easier time deporting all these damn black people!"
If this were to happen, you would be under no burden whatsoever to respect this person just because he shares your anti-sexist position and saying "Hey, there's nothing about anti-sexism specifically that means you can't be a racist, so let's not attack these racists among us."
That would be absurd. But it's similar to what you're asking now. The reason I am an atheist (and the reason many others like me are) is because we've embraced a skeptical and reality-based worldview, that excludes the supernatural (for which there is no evidence) and holds that to believe in things without good reason is dangerous and should be avoided.
So when we see someone on an atheist site who has not embraced a skeptical worldview, of course we're still going to "attack them" (though obviously not violently): from our perspective, they are almost exactly the same as people who are not atheists.
Certainty without [having heard the] evidence?
Is that like faith?
Everyone who watched the live coverage of this trial, saw and heard all of the evidence.
But why would anyone question 'certainty', based on a preponderance of the virtual mountain of physical, scientific, and behavioral evidence that was presented at trial? Would that be indicative of either not having seen the evidence one's self, or simply of one's ability to be badly confused by the defense? One who's strategy could be best characterized by the adage that, "If we can't dazzle you with the details, we certainly expect to baffle you with the bullsh!t."
I question your certainty because, though you might have watched the live coverage, you heard none of what the jurors said during their deliberations. They probably did not share your absolutism.
"...based on a preponderance of the ... evidence?
Another reason to question your certainty: you know the Anthony trial was not a civil trial. Your outrage appears to be so great that you are thinking and writing carelessly.
A third reason to question your certainty: you don't accept the idea that it's better to free a guilty person than to convict an innocent person. The law is less mechanistic than you want it to be.
The original question was "What (stuff) do you believe ... even though you don't have evidence ..."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but in a criminal trial surrounding a circumstantial case, one would generally be expected to evaluate a preponderance of the evidence, in order to arrive any finding of guilt or innocence. And if guilt should be determined, that it should be beyond any reasonable doubt.
Now, I can't speak for the juror's in this case - nor was I attempting to; I simply do not agree with the reasoning (of lack of reasoning) behind their verdict.
But by all accounts, they appear to have been sufficiently "baffled by the BS" to, to have precluded any rational debate among themselves. (And whatever actual discussions were held, it seemed obvious to me - maybe not to you - that precious little time was given to "examining the [actual] evidence" that was presented at trial.)
And, while the law is certainly not "less mechanistic than (I) want it to be," I find the argument for two wrongs somehow inferring a 'right,' to be some cold comfort whenever an egregious miscarriage of justice manages to prevail.
But, again - and as it was originally put forth - these are my opinions, which I put forth as holding "beyond any reasonable doubt."
But rather than play mattress police, by presuming to parse and mischaracterize my ability to formulate and hold an opinion in the first place, or my right to express that opinion in the second, I'd much rather see you take a more straightforward - and less high-handed - approach to dialog. One where you would be willing to share your own thoughts and insights concerning particular points of the case at hand - or even your own feelings about, for instance, the verdict reaction in this case.
(I find the approach useful as a kind of personal litmus test; to know whether you're speaking up because you have something to say, or just talking to hear your ears rattle.)
I'm a Naturalist too - and it was a relief 5 years ago when I came accross Naturalism on my internet searches for athiesm - that I didn't any more need to rack my brain thinking about whether we did or didn't have a soul - or could or couldn't astral travel - having previously not had the company or access to the internet to easily research the matters. It was such a relief for me to be able to have connect with other naturalistic thinkers who fully supported my idea that there wasn't a god or any other supernatural entity that existed. It was like coming home - very reassuring - and I'm still very grateful for all your company and influence :)
The Internet is a great tool for those who wish to learn and find information and research on any topic. It really is an information revolution.