Maybe it's because I'm not bayesian enough:

If I accepted that:

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. P(H | E) > P(H) if and only if P(H | ~E) < P(H). Absence of evidence may be very weak evidence of absence, but it is evidence nonetheless. (However, you may not be entitled to a particular kind of evidence.)

You cannot expect[2] that future evidence will sway you in a particular direction. "For every expectation of evidence, there is an equal and opposite expectation of counterevidence."

Then I may not hold my current attitude. But I don't see reason to believe those premises.