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 definition is closer to agnostic than atheist. An atheist has made up their minds usually based on the evidence. I admit some may not be interested in evidence as such they are quite willing to accept the most parsimonious subjective explanation.
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.

1. Subjective evidence cant be collaborated its subjective than means its a product of your own mind and no one else's its subjective. Look in the dictionary.

No don't. I will relate:

Subjective: arising from ones own mind or feelings !not corresponding or caused by external reality.

In short its a made up idea. The only collaboration can come from those who 'feel' the same way.
Of course that's not collaboration at all. Its not even support, its just people who 'feel' the same.
Not a matter of evidence of any description. Saying god exists because more than one of us believes it isn't enough. Not by along way. You really are desperate.

2. If evidence doesn't exist denial of it is sensible . I do deny subjective evidence as it cant exist by definition of the term 'subjective'.

3. If you did answer the question truthfully would understand it. The truth is no matter what you believe you will try to say black is white if it suits your purpose.
Subjectivity is not evidence Its not based on any evidence, its personal opinion. Have the guts to say it.

4. The agnostics I am talking about are those that claim 'not to know'.

As we are posting on a forum that is focused on the existence or not of a God its reasonable to assume that the agnostics I am talking about don't know about the existence of God and don't claim to know if he or it exists or not.
Your attempt at ignoring that does your argument no good at all. Your just trying to play with semantics.

Face up to the issues. You know as well as I do that agnostics are not convinced in the existence of a God and atheists deny that existence.

Atheists (most of them at least the reasonable ones) don't do that lightly. We are all pressured by society. So most of us do it from a position of science and evidence. I deny the existence of a supernatural being in all its forms as there is no evidence none.

Not to mention one made like a man or vice versa.
Not to mention one who sit back and lets his creations suffer.
Not to mention one who used to demand sacrifice but now isn't so bothered.
Not to mention one who has a son but no wife.
Not to mention one who decided to let his son be crucified to save mankind and failed even though he is supposed to be omnipotent.

Dear me I have mentioned it.[/b]
It seems to be a belief in God is similar to the belief that you can kiss your own arse when clearly you cant?

If you can please present the evidence.
The contortions undertaken by Christians explaining blind belief make such a physical act look simple.

---

from dictionary

---

sub·jec·tive
–adjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6.pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

---

And from Webster

---

1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject: as a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness b : being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative
2 : of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> — compare objective 1c
5 : lacking in reality or substance : illusory

---

1- Let's cherry pick our definitions so they suit our arguments.. This is tiresome. Taking a collective look at all of them it seems like subjective just means relative to an individual agents perceptions. It doesn't prevent individuals from having the same experience it's a frame of reference that's it. Allow me to illustrate, experience is subjective. You and 5 guys all experience a ball flying through the window.The guy in the bathroom doesn't. All material evidence (broken window, ball, etc.) is completely removed/repaired and the guy comes out of the bathroom. How do the 5 of you convince the one that a ball flew through the window? There is no physical objective evidence but all 5 of you saw the exact same thing. In the absence of physical material evidence subjective experience would be the only evidence, and likelihood should be judged based personal perception not pleading from either side. I think we can agree to that.I'm not desperate actually just tired, I've had all these arguments before.

2-With the first sentence I'll agree. However if you take the phrase "subjective evidence" it does exist as evidence because of the word "evidence". It's nature can be either subjective or objective, but you obviously can't see your denial on this. I think I'll have to readdress this after a few days because it seems we're going in circles.

3- I did answer it truthfully but you're sounding ridiculous. If you're the only person who sees a beautiful butterfly in the forest land on a tree and then fly off.. how in the hell could that be objective to anyone else without extras added to the mix. Wait let me beat you to it you can record it on film.. that's objective right? Then you have 2 evidences your objective evidence and the subjective experience of actually seeing it yourself.

4- I think it's obvious that I'm not attempting to ignore or deny anything, merely trying to reason to a common ground.
Bolding by me (I know this still won't get through)

Face up to the issues. You know as well as I do that agnostic atheists are not convinced in the existence of a God and atheists deny that existence.

That's a statement I can then agree to, meanwhile stop putting words in my mouth, and attempting to cherry pick definitions then regurgitate them to me like you're attempting to think for me too. The rest of the post seemed like someone in denial. As far as presenting evidence. I've done it several times on here and if you're that interested you can look it up. Every time I seem to post it the thread derail shortly after or all conversation seems to stop. I've done it 3 times I believe and really don't feel like going over it again. Especially from someone who's arguments seemed riddled with denial for stubbornness sake and appears devoid of any intellectual honesty.