Hope this doesn't annoy you wry but I just wanted to clarify some points in regard this issue and since the other thread has run its course and was not really about the end of the world anymore I thought a new thread would be ok if it was specifically dedicated to this topic. I know I might be kidding myself that anything productive could come of thid discussion but well there's always hope. To recap for anyone not on the other thread the debate has essentially gone like this: Poop Loops- There is no evidence for what religion teaches. CKava- There is no scientific evidence but scientific evidence is not the only type of evidence in the world. Witness testimony is used in courts for instance. Poop Loops- Scientific evidence is the only good kind. Has anyone SEEN God? There was alot more said than that by many more people besides me and Poop Loops but thats the gist of the debate I want to focus on. Now also to make clear from the beginning I AM AN ATHEIST and I don't find the views of God (or Gods) given in any religion Im aware of to be credible. Despite this, I can accept that others do have religious beliefs and do frequently base their beliefs on SUBJECTIVE evidence. And as long as they aren't arguing that their SUBJECTIVE evidence is valid for science or that their SUBJECTIVE evidence proves the existence of God to others then I really don't see any reason to get all worked up over it. With my position hopefully clarified on to Poop Loops last response: 1. No evidence is not a kind of evidence. That is just silly and no-one is arguing that. 2. I gave you the example of eye witness testimony usually holding up quite well in court, have you forgotten already? Silly... who said that you can accept only 1 type of evidence at a time. Religious scientists understand that scientific evidence is necessary for something to become accepted in science and yet most will still have subjective reasons for believing in God. This is the problem Poop Loops besides your arguments essentially being like a childs you again are missing the point: I am not arguing that someone has to BELIEVE someone else's subjective evidence. Thousands of people have claimed to yes. Does this mean we have to believe them? No. Just like we don't have to believe the thousands who claim to have seen flying saucers. Again to make it clear I am not suggesting subjective evidence must be accepted but just that you cannot deny its existence or its use: If a few of your friends told you not to walk down the street you usually walk home by because there is a dodgy looking gang hanging around would you; A) Take their advice and walk home a different way. B) Ask for verified scientific evidence to support their conclusions and then if they had none promptly dismiss their 'evidence' as useless, accuse them of being unintelligent and proceed to walk home the usual way? Well put Homer. However to make it clear I am 100% not arguing that people should not search for the most plausible explanation for a phenomena. I am simply arguing that subjective evidence is EVIDENCE. Many scientists believe in God while simultaneously being well aware of how scientifically no evidence exists to support the existence of any God. Wrydolphin for instance frequently argues against religious nutbars who try to dismiss scientific evidence and yet still believes in God. She believes in God and yet she respects scientific evidence and the scientific method, doesn't seem to be illogical and doesn't seem stupid. She is therefore the perfect example of why Poop Loops view is wrong... Poop Loops is trying to argue that science and religious belief are incompatible, this is the view of religious fundamentalists as well but frankly its nonsense otherwise how can people like wry exist?