Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

I don't know why you are not a Christian, it may have nothing to do with evidence.  I do think that the excuse of flat out denying testimony however isn't very consistent or well thought out.
Also, if you are defining evidence, as you have previously (as what persuedes you), then I don't think the statement even makes since.  That is an issue I have with that definition, you can't ignore evidence, because it is subjective.

I would say that the best evidence we have of Christian beliefs is the Bible, and I find it inconsistent and hostile.

It was a poll of subscribers to the journal, and to be fair; I got the feeling, that it was a volunteer response, so those who have had issues, or think that there is an issue, may have been more likely to complete the survey.  It included scientist reporting their experiences, and involved difficulties in repeating peer reviewed experiments.  Some of the social sciences, or psychology, I don't think are that surprising, but the natural sciences, such as physics, and chemistry where.  I would agree, that science and religion are not adversarial.  I also agree, that not all areas of science are directly repeatable.  I may quibble on calling the multiverse science, but there are a number of investigative sciences, which are purely inferential such as archeology, where you are looking at the evidence, and  making a determination to the best conclusion.

The thing about archeology is that it is really said that "this is so," as religions say.  This is important to me-- the more confidently you make your claims, the greater your reason for confidence should be.  After that, the next best evidence, it seems to me, is subjective revelation-- but it is not specific only to the Christian religion.  Therefore, I'd say that religious experiences are not of religion, but of human nature, and that they cannot therefore serve as evidence in favor of this or that religious tradition.  This, I think, has been your problem throughout this discussion-- you want to include religious testimony in our consideration of what is true, but surely you would not accept Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan accounts as evidence in favor of the actual existence of Krsna, an enlightened Buddha, or Thor.

I think that you misunderstand.  I don't just dismiss your testimony.   And I try to follow a principle of charity, which means that I don't immediately second guess it, or question your motivations without reason.  I think we are again running into a difficulty in definition again.  Just because I am not convinced, does not mean that mean that it is not evidence.  The content (of which yours was lacking detail) however does make a difference.

So would you like to address, that you are offering testimony as evidence?

Your post is to far after the one you're responding to.  I don't really understand what you are saying right now.

---

I was listening to a podcasts the other day, which seems relevant to this conversation. The caller was a geocentrist, and further believed that the earth was stationary (does not rotate on an axis). The hosts quickly pointed out, the observations made, which easily disprove this including the observation from space of the earths rotation, and the fact that satellites in a synchronous orbit need to have their time calibrated for the difference in speed because of their greater orbit.

The caller immediately dismissed this; similarly to what I see here, as anecdotes, and having to believe what others tell you. Now to me, he is denying the evidence, based on what their a priori knowledge states (I would say that this man, couldn't be reasoned with). Do you think that he was correct in his method?