Question(s) for the Religious

[John V]

The point is that, to us, that's all religion is.

And my point is that your position is ad hoc and based on your biases. You apply rules of evidence differently to religion than you do other things in order to reach your desired conclusion.
[You ask for proof of the Spaghetti monster (not Pastrami but same Italian origin) [/quote]
No, I haven't asked for proof of IPU or FSM.

because you cannot take us at our word.

Just the opposite. I don't ask for proof because I do take you at your word. You admit that these are purely human constructs, and I accept that.

It doesn't matter if this thing is spiritual or corporeal, for neither can be proven with demonstrable evidence, as far as we've seen.

This is a false dichotomy. There are degrees of evidence. That neither of two things can be conclusively proven does not imply that the two have equal evidence or lack thereof.

You ask us to take a walk in your shoes, to believe in something we can't see, to give faith a try.

No I don't.

Many of us have attempted this, and results always vary, or there are simply no results. If you took a look at the world through our eyes, to try and see if your god can be demonstrated to exist by some testable and reproducible means, then you might understand us a little better.

I do understand you. I've never claimed that your lack of belief is unintelligible.

Bottom-line, your examination process is flawed simply because you are shifting the burden of proof of your claim. We understand that you believe in it, but we can't verify its veracity without evidence, so we don't attempt to believe in it as you do. Doing so is called using faith, and faith is always blind.

Why is faith always blind?

I don't think that's what WV was postulating. The situation he created, that is, the person making up spiritual claims, is going to try very hard not to wink at the crowd when he gives his spiel. Whether the claim comes from an honest believer or a decidedly conny con man, we still need evidence to demonstrate whether or not what either person says is true.

What type of evidence is needed in addition to testimony, and why? What do we have regarding historical claims before sound recording and photography other than testimony? How do we know that the Gettysburg address occurred?