Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

"How do you know that it's evidence?"I'm saying there are different kinds of evidence. This isn't physical evidence. I already made a point to say it isn't scientific but you typically went ahead and ignored that going for the classic overdone "prove it" argument. "I find it more likely that you are... I don't know, misguided?"What you happen to find "likely" doesn't hold any weight. "I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here."Just expounding on spiritual evidence. Perhaps it wasn't the best example. Why can't spiritual contact be based on empiricism? I think we're looking at this from two different angles. Everything I'm talking about is on a personal level. Not some text book this is for everybody try to convince everybody point of view. Contrary to mainstream Christianity that's not what I'm doing. " I'm asking for probability."Okay well that's where we differ. I believe in a direct source of truth. You do not. So the idea of probability(in a personal religious sense) would be useless to me. Like I said before unless we agree to disagree on that there will be no healthy educational debate. "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."What's your point?"This is new. What do you not know then?"Lots. I don't know about where god came from. I don't know for sure about how the earth was created. etc. I could go on. This is part of why we don't disregard science. "And, inadvertently or not, invoking the supernatural instantly disregards the scientific method."Interesting. What exactly do you mean by "invoking the supernatural instantly"?"It isn't scientific. It's beneficial."Hmm that sounds irrational. Don't forget to add reason. "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."Okay that doesn't contradict what I said. Sometimes theories are disproved and sometimes they are not. I agree that the majority of them are. I never said that religious Ideas were scientific. Sorry... I know you're so used to that. 'sigh' I guess I'm not your everyday christian. This is tricky isn't it? (; I was being sort of hypothetical when I referred to the scientific world it was an example. "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." That is all true. Accept for the friction thing. There will only be friction if you let it happen. There is often friction. That is the fault of both sides. "Why would you let religion on the team then?"Oh that is such a good question. You said "religion can't offer brilliant testing methods and evidence" etc. So tell me what exactly does this religion player represent? Anyone who has religious beliefs or religion it's self? Of course an abstract idea can't provide that stuff. OR you could be saying that only atheists should be allowed to be scientists? I'll give you a chance to explain yourself before I compare you to Hitler. "One can criticize the general ideals held by all of them"That's better. "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."So are you admitting that you're letting the loud majority represent everyone els? Or is it that you just find them annoying and want to rant? -I'm legitimately asking. I would understand I think they're annoying too. I agree that people shoot their feet often. It doesn't hurt me to criticize other Christians as long as it's case by case and not discriminating.