The Evidence Required Is?

[Rev. Rye]

Does anyone else agree with Rev Rye?

Its not that his list is unreasoned. His list is a great list, and very "to the point" breaking down good reasons to believe in things. Predictability, consistency, etc... He did a great job putting it together. I have great respect for Rev Rye as a friend and a very intelligent and humorous poster.

The problem is not with Rev ryes list....it's with me....

Crap. I should have mentioned earlier that I took it from a website;
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
I adapted a companion piece to this into another thread called "The Theist's Guide to an atheist forum."
I was originally going to post videos of this list being read aloud on Youtube, but, for some reason, they didn't show up. I should have mentioned this up front, but I was kind of rushed and forgot to do it. If I cam still do it, I shall rectify this.

That said, this list is really more for theists than atheists. The title is "The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists," after all. I don't carry this list around, trying to check whatever I hear theists saying and contrast it with the standards of the list. I really don't see why, if God exists, he would make it so that one would need philosophical arguments to try to prove it. Why not make it self-evident? Why wait until Martin Luther realised how corrupt the Catholic Church was in 1517 (I am an ex-Lutheran, BTW) or 1744 to show Emmanuel Swedenborg that Christian doctrine as it is is woefully flawed? Why not make it so that there's no ambiguity, especially when it appears that God cares whether or not one believes he exists?