I've read several of the sequences, and I'm fairly familiar with this community's way of thinking.
Everyone is referring me to Absence of Evidence; I think that it's a weak argument in the first place, but it also seems to be the only one a lot of people have.
Everyone is referring me to Absence of Evidence; I think that it's a weak argument in the first place
Do you think it's a weak argument in general, or just a weak argument with respect to religion in particular?
If the former, it would certainly help if you could explain that. If the latter, do you think that religion is a special case with respect to need for evidence, or are you simply arguing that there is evidence available to us? And if the last one, why not discuss that evidence?
Absence of Evidence is directly tied to having a probabilistic model of reality. There might be an inferential gap when people refer you to it, because on its own the argument doesn't seem strong. But it's a direct consequence of Bayesian reasoning, which IS a strong argument.
(Just to clarify: I didn't mean to accuse you of ignorance, and I sympathize with having everyone spam you with links to the same material, which must be aggravating.)
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.