Atheist special pleading.

I always hear the following argument.

A.)The atheist states that he does not believe in God because there is no scientific evidence for God, which is fine, as God is absent from scientific literature.

B.)However, there is no scientific evidence for a slew of other things the atheist believes as well, there is certainly no scientific evidence that the atheist himself exists, or his mother exists, or that his parents love him/spouse love him, or his friends like him, yet the atheist believes that.

The atheist might state that A is more reasonable, but that is beside the point as it no longer becomes about scientific evidence now, but 'what is reasonable' and 'what is reasonable' is entirely subjective. To the atheist it might be 'more reasonable' to believe B rather than A, but to a theist it is equally reasonable to believe in A and B.

It is quite fine to say that you have not experienced evidence for God, it is also fine to say that there is no scientific evidence for God, but that doesn't even matter, as you most likely have not seen evidence for quantum mechanics nor have you seen evidence for evolution. The atheist engages in special pleading and hilarious irony when they declare personal experience is not good enough when it comes to God because they believe in something else that somebody elses personal experience. It simply boils down to what the completely subjective notion of who are what is 'more reasonable' to follow.