I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

All 'subjective' evidence isn't equal. Some is therefore 'objective' in that sense.

On what grounds do you say that "all subjective evidence isn't equal"? Subjective grounds. In other words, you are subjectively judging that all subjective evidence isn't subjectively equal. It's simply pointless, because you don't understand the argument. It's not a battle over what has more "evidence", but over the very nature and grounds of all evidence. I will have to quote myself.

What do you mean there is evidence for reality? Do you mean with "evidence", objective epistemic foundations for the belief that reality exists? If so, you are begging the question of an objective standard which transcends subjectivity, for epistemic foundations, and that is simply not consistent with a non-monotheistic epistemic structure, which provides no objective standard for logical truth, except abstractions of the brain chemistry, and then you are contradicting your own epistemic structure.

If not, then you are merely talking of subjective abstractions, which is not something which provides an objective epistemic foundation for the belief that reality exists - only subjective, in which case you cannot adscribe to it any truth that transcends your own mind. In either case, you are unable to propose anything objectively about reality as an atheist, but only subjectively which means literally, for yourself, and in and of your own mind.

Because there is a big difference between absolute and objective.

Objective is the antonym of subjective. Now we are simply arguing over semantics.

It doesn't have to be absolute. When some 'subjective' point of view has more demonstrable evidence than other points (not all views are equal), it has more objectivity in that sense.

It does not have more objectivity because it fulfills the subjective requirements which you yourselves posite for demonstration. It is still merely subjectively defined what is evidence and what is not and what is demonstrated and what is not, unless an objective standard is already presupposed.

It doesn't have to be demonstrable to everyone for it to be objective. For instance: what about crazy people who are too insane to understand anything properly? Is it not objective if it can't be demonstrated to them?

It is not objective at all if it doesnt transcend subjective minds.

Well my original question was whether you believe you have evidence for your God or whether you just accept him on blind faith. I have yet to see a response to that (other than you mentioning something about metaphysics to Kyu perhaps) - untill now.

Yes, I have. You simply didn't read my post on page 2 then. The last post on page 2 - read it. Here I quote:

You seem to have answered my question for me in response to Kyu though! Seems you believe there is evidence in metaphysics! In which case my second question would be: What evidence; and how is it evidence?

You ask me what evidence there is. I will give you an answer, but it's a long one. So don't ask such questions if you don't want long answers

[..]