Hell

[Matthew]

Because we are critically thinking about your assumptions and definitions, and to give my view would be irrelevant.

Is that your strategy, then, to just deflect and turn questions around on the person asking them?

My aim is to critically think about the claims that people make, and to avoid going off on tangents as much as possible. We are currently talking about your argument that critical thinking should lead people to reject religious claims, and the assumptions involved. I am very willing to respond to questions about and arguments against any claims that I make, and I apologise if I give the appearance of trying to evade questions.

Your view is not irrelevant, I'm genuinely curious and it would help provide a fuller understand of what different people mean by 'evidence.'

My point in the previous post was that, strictly speaking, my opinions about evidence don't have much to do with our discussion thus far because we are examining your views on the matter (which is why I said my views were irrelevant). If you think that knowing my views will help to clarify your own then I am happy to give a brief definition:

Suppose that person S believes some proposition Q on the basis of some other set of propositions P={P1, P2, ...}. P is evidence for Q if S rationally believes P and P supports Q. P supports Q if an argument (be it deductive or inductive) with P as the premises and Q as the conclusion is good. (Of course then there is the question of what constitutes a good argument, and I can go into that if you like.)

You also seem to ignore good arguments against your position, but that's not surprising, most theists do.

I do my best to respond to people who quote me and respond with arguments. Obviously being an atheist forum it would be impossible to respond to every argument given against my position here. If there are particular ones you would like me to respond to I will be happy to oblige.

Matthew, if you really don't think evidence is necessary to hold onto a hypothesis, then you won't call me crazy if I say I strongly believe that Narnia exists and that Aslan is my savior. It's written in a book after all! And I've received a personal revelation from the Great Lion Himself!

I don't think evidence is always necessary in order to rationally believe something. That doesn't mean that it is not sometimes necessary or sufficient in some contexts (indeed, it is in many).