Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

This is true but the point I'm making is that there is evidence. Not by the scientific definition of evidence but a personal spiritual evidence.How do you know that it's evidence? If no-one else can verify it, then the chance that you are mistaken increases. While it may be evidence, I find it more likely that you are... I don't know, misguided? I'm not sure what the word would be. "Hallucinating" is too far.I don't know if I will see the sun rise tomorrow the sun could explode in the middle of the night. I could die in my sleep. But if I do see it tomorrow I'll know it's there and that I saw it.I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. The examples you provided are all based on empiricism, something spiritual contact cannot be based on.You're asking for guesswork. Not really. I'm asking for probability. After all, we may as well educate our "guess".But for other answers we can search the scriptures, think about it, and ask God.Sometimes schizophrenics ask voices in their heads for answers. They rarely get them. While religion is certainly not a mental disorder, it is comparable to a few of them.To already have what answers? The answers to the questions that science currently can't answer (not with absolute certainty anyway). What caused the Big Bang? Why is the universe the way it is? Where did the first life come from? Et cetera.We don't claim to have every answer to everything. We know that we sometimes have to say I don't know. It takes humility. And we don't disregard science.This is new. What do you not know then?And, inadvertently or not, invoking the supernatural instantly disregards the scientific method.Which scientists? The religious ones or the non religious ones? It sure isn't scientific to separate the two I can tell you that.It isn't scientific. It's beneficial.In the scientific world different opposing ideas get scrutinized all the time and they are forced to coexist maybe even forever.Not necessarily. The vast majority of scientific ideas only last until something comes along to disprove it. Take the arrival of heliocentrism for example. The problem is that religious ideas can never be disproved, making them unscientific.Do you think it's poor?I think it's slightly too crude. The principle is fine though.I actually don't understand the analogy could you help me out?OK. Take soccer as an example. Soccer is 11 players all working towards scoring goals to win games. Now, in professional soccer, the players all have to be immensely talented, willing to improve, and able to work as a team. But what if you have a player who can't do these things? We'll call him X. Then X plays poorly, but, the team plays poorly too. Thus, you don't let people like X on the team.Now imagine that you have 11 scientists, and the goal is discovery. Now, call X "religion". Religion can't offer brilliant testing methods and evidence, can't improve its answers, and causes friction among the scientific community. Why would you let religion on the team then?So you can't really criticize them as a whole can you? Well I guess you could but it wouldn't be very nice.One can criticize the general ideals held by all of them. That a supernatural being created everything, and that he cares, and that he has revealed himself.No. -but it's interesting that you pick those to ask about. Why is that? Let's talk about that. Shall we? Should we further explore you're uncontrolled bias?If you want. But on the condition that you don't complain about the relevance of it to the debate.Who needs representing? Does that have anything to do with this debate?And who said anything about public affairs? What are you doing?It is relevant for two reasons.1. I was asking you a question. 2. It's one of the reasons I don't believe in God. If every theist was like the ones I know, then I might take the idea more seriously. But the ones that have the largest voices make the least sense, and shoot themselves in the foot.