If some decide that god exists and some decide that god doesnt exist while looking at the same evidence and some people decide that the evidence is inconclusive then i would think they would also disagree when it comes to any other evidence. Given the facts that there are thousands of contradictory beliefs while people draw there beliefs from the same evidence i wouldnt expect them to be a good judge of almost any evidence. Most people are stupid. Given the fact that criminals do bad because they dont know any better and the jury that convicts them cant even agree on what the evidence means there probably isnt a god and if there is one he is not all powerful all knowing or good. A god who would create us without the knowledge of right and wrong is responsible for evil. A god who would create us too stupid to practice good justice doesnt care about justice. And a god who would create some of us with clef chin and mental illness wants some of us to be miserable.
...In that based on successful appeals, the rate of false conviction is in low single figures.
So why is religious belief so much more conflicted?
People do not draw different conclusions about God from the *same* evidence. Instead, children are taught arbitrary claims about God from *no* evidence.
The most compelling support for this is that statistically, if you adopt a faith it will most likely be the faith of one of your parents.
Regarding the irrelevance of evidence in faith, indoctrinating children into religion from childhood is like training jurors from birth to believe that a particular suspect is guilty of murder where there is no body, no weapon, no clear motive, and the identity of the suspect is itself unclear.
No wonder that by adulthood, the faithful are confused, anxious and deeply conflicted.
Children should be taught *about* religion, but not lied to and told that your particular faith is uniquely and necessarily true.
Most rational philosophers agree that one cannot sufficiently prove or disprove the existence of God, it depends on the individual beliefs of the individual. Decisions by a jury are based off of facts and evidence that is not just empirical. To say that an empirical belief is equivalent to interpretation of facts is a stretch and and very illogical. Also, one cannot assume that people are presented with the same evidence of God, as they are when they are on a jury. Furthermore, people's opinion on the existence of God is usually based on pre-existing bias, where as the facts of the trial (usually) are not.