If faith works how every religion says it works......

[tackattack]

---

Wow to that last post, I don't have huge amounts of time so I'll be brief and only address some points:
1-just because you don't accept subjective evidence, even when coorberated doesn't mean there is no evidence, it only means you see no evidence (which in all likely hood would only be materialistic in nature anyway)
2- You should only apply occam's razor when competing hypothesis are equal in other respects, it's not the case here.
3-agreed
4-atheism is simply a belief that there isn't evidence to support the existence of God/gods thusly it is the neutral position it has nothing to do with science other than the equirement for evidence (which is only by similarity)

Not quite:

1. There is no such thing as subjective evidence. Thats 'opinion' not evidence.
2. They are equal.
3. Agreed ?? You cant agree that one if you have no evidence I dont accept your agreement as I dont accept ypou have evidence. See 1.
4. The definitionis closer to agnostic than atheist. An athiest has made up their minds usually based on the evidence. I admit some may not be intrested in evidence as such they are quite willing to accept themost parsimonious subjective explantion.
That would be there is no God.

---

1-subjective evidence is supportive of subjective proof. It may not hold any weight for you, but by definition subjective evidence is evidence
2- They're only equal (booth without proof/ evidence) if you deny subjective evidence. Hence the reason I qualify "It's more indicative that God exists than not" with "It's more indicative that God exists than not from the evidence I've been presented and verified"
3-I'm aware that would be a logical contradiction without evidence, just like I'm aware you reject subjective evidence. You're entitled to your opinions, I don't particularly care just answering questions.
4- Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief in God, Agnosticism is simply the the concept of absolute truth is unknowable. You can be both agnostic theist and atheist because the theism/atheism is the subject and the agnostic is method.

---

1-just because you don't accept subjective evidence, even when coorberated doesn't mean there is no evidence, it only means you see no evidence (which in all likely hood would only be materialistic in nature anyway)

Subjective evidence could be evidence if corroborated. Until then, however, it is a very weak form of evidence, and usually outweighed by masses of observation from past experience (when it comes to things like miracles).

2- You should only apply occam's razor when competing hypothesis are equal in other respects, it's not the case here.

Surely suspension of judgement is the appropriate position, rather than invoking an explanation which raises more questions than it answers.

---

1- Agreed, but those who believe in a personal God typically also have subjective evidence that coincides. You may feel it's rationalization and biased, and indeed it sometimes is when not proceeded by an actual rational experience from observation.
2- Yes but denial of evidence delves into closed mindedness. An open allowance for all verifiable logical and rational evidence is tantamount to a less-biased approach.