The real religion?

[SteveII]

If you don't what to hear me mention the NT, then you shouldn't claim there is no evidence for God as a rebuttal to...well...just about anything. In fact there is evidence. The most an atheist can justify saying is that the evidence is not compelling--moving from positively asserting a fact "no evidence" (and not being able to defend it) to the much modest claim of "not compelling". Perhaps I underestimate all of your ability to grasp that distinction.

Oh my god, it never stops.

You:  there is evidence for God:  the bible

Me:  the bible is not evidence.  Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities

You:  well, that's SCIENTIFIC evidence.  Since God cannot be detected scientifically, you have to accept this "other" kind of non-scientific, special evidence.  If you don't accept it, then you are ignoring evidence.

Me:  But...one old book and a bunch of testimonials of subjective experience is not good evidence...

You:  yes it is.  Because...it is.  You're ignoring evidence.

*face palm*

Again with the science. You have described scientific evidence and tried to apply it to a field that has nothing to do with science: history and historical documents. What event in history could ever stand up to your criteria of: 'Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities'? No that is not what evidence is. 

In addition, you said in two different sentences that the 'bible is not evidence' and then 'is not good evidence'. Which is it?

Aren't all experiences subjective? Why would eyewitness accounts not be good evidence in a historical context?