My problem with your definition is that you conflate "lack of belief" with "reject." Those are NOT the same things. I don't reject the concept of deities just because I don't believe that any were involved in the creation of the universe. I don't believe a lot of things, but I wouldn't say I reject many at all. Most of the things that I don't believe in, don't really matter much to me.
Let me try anothe way.
Atheist: What is your definition of atheism.
Me: Only explicit atheism.
Atheist: Wait, but you are can considering implicit atheism and that should be the valid defintion
Me: You are right, I take that. I just consider those that actually know what atheism means and describe themselves as atheist.
Atheist: But, don't you think you might leave a lot of people out?
Me: Maybe so, but I'm only using that definition for survey purposes, and only people who actually know what atheism means and think they are can check the atheist box.
Atheist: But remember, strictly speaking, implicit atheists are athiests.
Me: I agree.
Yet many people would consider it some sort of evidence. It's not a double-blinded study, but most of us don't have the time or inclination to conduct them on the spot when we witness something we think is incredible.
Now you're redefining evidence. If I see something, I may consider it evidence. It may not be good evidence, and it may not stand up to scrutiny. But I can still call it evidence. There are people who truly believe they talk to ghosts and other people who truly believe they talk to jesus. Their evidence may not be scientific, but it still stands as evidence for what they personally believe.
I'm sorry. It is kind of ironic how you accuse me of fitting the definitions to my arguments. Evidence has a very special connotation and a very precise meaning.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6448317
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
Evidence shows something is true, in short. I might guess why the confusion, but I won't.
I had a reason. It wasn't a scientific reason, but it was a reason. I explained it.
Having a reason is not the same as being rational.
That is something I find unbelievable. I don't think I've ever met a person who is logically consistent and 100% rational. We're not vulcans.
Let me try again.
Atheists: I find the most of the atheists I know are as logically inconsistent and irrational as the theist I know.
Me: My experience has been almost the opposite. Most of the atheists I know are more logically consistent and rational than the theists I know, on average of course.
How high do I have to raise my hand for you to see it? Me me me! I'm logically inconsistent and prone to irrational thinking. I try my best, but my human emotions get in the way at times.
And again:
Atheist: I'm sure you don't mean rational and logically consistent 100% of the time.
Me: Of course, it would be very very stupid of me to say something like that. I mean, on average, the atheists I know tend to be very rational and logically consistent, more so than the theist I know.
I don't disagree with this. I believe it because I believe that nearly all humans are irrational creatures, in spite of their best efforts to the contrary. Sometimes we have "reasons" for believing things that may be entirely personal and irrational, but are very difficult for an individual to shake.
Humans are not irrational creatures. We are rational creatures who sometimes behave irrationally. Irritional humans are by definition crazy, and there is treatment for crazy people.
