We're not in disagreement except that as with @Kathryn, what you call evidence justifying a god belief isn't that for me. You and I have access to the same evidence that believers say justifies their god belief, but don't use the same rules to connect that evidence to our conclusions about what it signifies, and so come to different conclusions.
It's my belief that the believer uses motivated reasoning:
"Motivated reasoning is a cognitive and social response, in which individuals, consciously or unconsciously, allow emotion-loaded motivational biases to affect how new information is perceived."
It basically says that without dispassionate, rigorous reasoning, which takes practice to execute, one will see what he hopes to see or already has decided is true. This is why the ID people kept seeing irreducible complexity that others not using that kind of motivated reasoning didn't see but instead refuted.
It's also why in clinical trials, neither the patient nor the clinician knows which patient got the experimental treatment (treatment group) and which got the placebo (control group) - a process called double blinding. People want these things to work, and if they know they received the treatment, they tend to exaggerate the subjective benefit to please the clinician, or less often, the clinician exaggerates the non-measurable observables like balance.
From The Boxer. This doesn't have to be true in every case. We can train ourselves to do better:
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest"
