Should things without evidence be assumed to be false or imaginary or should we just suspend judgment on if it is true/real or if false/imaginary?

Plitty-Tank
Please watch this 1 hour 14 minute debate between Tom Jump and Trent Horn. Tom thinks it is okay to assume there is no afterlife since there is no proof. Trent thinks we should suspend judgment until we learn the truth. This applies to other things without evidence also like supernatural, God, etc.

I find it hypocritical of 'atheists' to claim we shouldn't assume things, yet they are assuming no supernatural or assuming other things don't exist. They claim we should suspend judgment until evidence meets the claim. Yet, when the reverse is applied in things not known to exist, they buck that trend. Why do you think so? Of course assuming they are true or real shouldn't be assumed until proven false either but neither should things be assumed false or imaginary until verified it can't exist either. We need to take the neutral stance of suspending judgment.

Please also check this site out!

https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/personal-update-tom-jump-and-epistemology
We should assume it is true or real
Vote A
We should assume it is false or imaginary
Vote B
We should suspend judgment on if it is true/real or if it is false/imaginary
Vote C
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
GirlGuy
Should things without evidence be assumed to be false or imaginary or should we just suspend judgment on if it is true/real or if false/imaginary?
2
2
Add Opinion