There is lots of convoluted argumentation and assertion going on in this feud I read and watched earlier.
Personally, I believe any ingrained self-convinced school of philosophy is ultimately constrained by one very stubborn thorn of evidentiary value. A self-devouring chain of approaches, so to speak.
Evidence is the materialization of our belief, but evidence is tainted for it holds no truths.
Evidence is a symbol that holds the weak promise of our own disputable facts. OJ wore gloves, or did he?
Evidence is ultimately a matter of interpretation and summons to displaced faith.
I have evidence God does not exist.
Oh yeah? I have evidence he does exist!
Evidence is an articulation of faith. Theists and atheists needs to leave the evidence ploy out of the picture and argue merely about baseless faiths because these are the only faiths that lack evidence, and thus, truth.
Truth is lack of evidence, but we cloud the pursuit of truth with feeble human evidence. Truth is unknowable because we argue with the tools of reality instead of persuading with instinct.
Human language is incapable of expressing the deepest levels of evidence. We dig up props of superficial evidence. A shallow facade that tells us nothing.