Religious Evidence, Scientific Evidence?

[Segev Moran]

Atheistic thinking is heavily based on the term evidence.

That is not true. Skeptical thinking relies on evidence (actual evidence, not term).

They are educated or rather indoctrinated to think that evidence should be the way in confirming a truth.

Indeed.

However this is not true in reality.

You are mistaken.
You have strong evidence, you have weak evidence. never the less, everything you grasp as reality is based on some form of evidence.
I think the difference in thinking is what you consider as valid evidence and what skeptical thought consider valid evidence.

They rely on faith instead to get to a truth.

I disagree.
You can rely on faith to assume something is true, this doesn't determine it as actual truth.

This is where the flaw of atheistic thinking is, due mainly to the indoctrination of secular education.

I can't see how this is a flaw.
I think that approaching any truth with skeptical mind, is the exact opposite of a flaw. its the only way someone should seek truth.
It is another thing to believe a truth even if there is not enough evidence to support it, this is Faith.

This kind of repeatable truth (i.e., scientific truth) is a very narrow and limited set of truth.

I disagree.
I think this is the only way one can conclude regarding a truth. there might be other truths, but you cannot claim them as true until you can back them up with evidence.

Our secular education however mistakenly treats it as the norm of what a truth is.

Why mistakenly? how else would you think will be best to determine if A is true or not?

In reality, we can't even back one out of the million meals we ever had with evidence.

Because you have no reason to do so.

It is because "what we ate" is not something which can be repeatable as a science is.

but it can be led to probable.
If i tell you yesterday i ate a live elephant, just like that. will you assume it as true or not without evidence?
If i'll tell you i ate an apple, there will be no reason for me to give you evidence as it has no impact on your reality.

7 billion humans (not to count those already died) can't even back up one of his past meals with evidence.

You are absolutely wrong.
Checking one's stomach can evident every ingredient this person ate recently.
Every genuine film and photo that show someone eating something, presents a sufficient evidence for the specific food that person ate.
Based on your body measurements, one can tell you what are the foods you need to stop eating.
Scrams of food can point to a food eaten.
Eye witnesses can provide evidence.
There are many ways to prove someone ate something.

That's how insignificant evidence is. We don't practically approach a fact of this kind (not repeatable) with evidence.

No,. we approach it with evidence that makes the argument more probable.
If we find enough evidence to claim it is very likely the examines event is true, we will assume so.

We approach it with faith instead.

Maybe you

If you are a friend I can trust, I swallow it right away without a second thought.

This is not a skeptical thinking. This is indeed faith and this has got nothing to do with atheism or not.

Do we have an alternative way to get to know what you ate? Unfortunately we don't.

See above

Science/evidence etc. won't tell what you ate, say, on Jul 11, 2012.

True, unless you had a reason to keep evidence for it.
As we don't really care what one ate 5 years ago, there is no need to even seek evidence for it.
If you told me you ate an apple pie 5 years ago on a specific date, i might believe you, but i will never claim it to be true without evidence to support it.

Someone wrote down what you ate that day and for others to believe with faith, that remains the only way we could possibly know what you ate.

I think you need a better analogy than "What one ate" in the past.

 

[gnostic]

G-d is the Creator of Universe so in religion the evidence is given from his Word.

Sorry, but that’s a load of craps.

Word is not evidence.