I do think that evidence is subjective.
No. The way you interprete evidence is subjective (i.e. what you feel it´s evidence
for). That´s why I suggested that revealing and explaining the way you arrive from evidence to your conclusion is important. "There´s a rose. It´s evidence for God." or "There´s murder. It´s evidence against God." don´t help the attempt at intersubjectivity. The most important parts are missing.
There's more going on than cut-and-dried objective evidence.
I don´t disagree. Now, unless you are fine with everyone having their subjective realities - I am still waiting for your suggestion what it is that´s going on there and allows for determining objectivity for your ideas.
I think one of the things going on is the worldview of the person interpreting the evidence.
Except that you were talking about
evidence for a certain worldview. So possibly you meant to submit that to each person their worldview is evidence for their worldview (completely circular bias-confirmation, if you will): X believes in God because he believes in God. Y doesn´t believe in God because he doesn´t believe in God.
Such a tautology not has little explanatory power.
The greater problem is: You would have to include yourself and your worldview into this general principle. However, what you are trying to attempt here is single out a competing worldview, and exempting your own. This requires more than appealing to a general human traits (even if you´d identify them accurately).
So, what do you do with the four fingers pointing back at you?
As suggested in the OP, if your worldview holds that there's no reality beyond what we can detect, then all evidence will be interpreted in light of the natural world.
And since my world-view doesn´t hold this, you are barking up the wrong tree, to begin with.
However, if your worldview holds that there is reality beyond what we can detect, then evidence can be interpreted in light of the supernatural. This allows for the miraculous, e.g., Creation ex nihilo.
I can assure you that it´s possible to believe that parts of reality aren´t detectable, yet not to jump to concluding the "supernatural" or a "God". It´s only because in your mind these things are inseparably linked that you can´t fathom people being able to approach each of them in their own right.
But, more importantly: Since in your last paragraph you so impressively described the theist´s insurmountable bias confirmation - how are you going to solve this issue in your attempt at using bias confirmation as a case against atheism in particular?
On another note, if believing in the undetectable means believing in the supernatural and thus believing in a God, the same does go for the Pink Invisible Unicorn. Just like God, it´s notorious for being undetectable and supernatural. So, unless you can provide us with a working epistemology of "the undectable" (which pretty much appears to be an oxymoron) and "the supernatural", our stumbling block at least prevents us from ending up helplessly and without any orientation in the world of the supernatural.
