Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

1. Not my problem 
2.No
3.Yes there it's all in pattern of shift and to what . 
4.Of course it matters 
5.Not my problem

1.  For empirical claims I prefer the methods of science.  For psychological claims I'm happy to accept what you say as true for you based only on your word so long as I think you're being sincere.  I actually think consciousness is more than than capable of producing more than your conscious mind.  In fact I'll make that my psychological confession.  But if you think God is more than a co-product of consciousness with an existence and agency beyond your own mind and body, then the standard for empirical claims applies.

2.  For psychological claims, of course.  For empirical claims, where bias is found it can be corrected for.

3.  The domains of the empirical and the psychological just do have separate epistemological standards.

4.  Evidence is the name of the game where formal science is concerned.  Of course we are all capable of acting on seat-of-the-pants empirical theories in our daily lives and formal science only cares about some of those.  Without the benefit of peer review our rough and ready empirical assumptions are indeed error prone.

5.  To move your psychological confession -which is what I think belief in God is- into the realm of empirical claims you would need peer reviewed evidence arrived at repeatedly by multiple groups independently performing the experiment.  If your claims regarding God are not amenable to testing, then you should admit what you hold is a psychological claim, the truth of which may be shared by some and not by others.  The good news for you is that your psychological claim is safe from being disproven by empirical standards.

Do you think that you need a PHD or a scientific research study in order to have evidence?    At what point in the PHD process do they enhance their vision?    Science is great for telling you what will generally occur, and collecting data to apply to statistics.   And someone with more knowledge may be able to add to what was seen in order to better explain it.   However I don't see where a scientific study is required for what can be casually observed or that science is always the best tool or the high priest from which all truth comes from.