again, you are using conventional modern standards for proof. Modern QA/QC.<quoted text>
You consider "feelings" to be evidence?
Or writings from previous believers?(Though I know many believers consider these to be written by the "hand of god" - but this belief is based on what? belief? faith? intuition?)
Besides, you miss a central tenet of religion - that faith is belief withOUT proof. I don't think you can have it both ways: "It's faith BUT there is actual evidence." In that case, one would not need faith.
As previously posted:
1.Com plete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
You have to admit that to say your evidence is partly "subjective experiential feelings" smacks of thruthiness:
"Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."
to someone who believes in their feelings, and who doesnt share our modern sensibilities - yes, it is evidence. You can weigh it according to our modern standard and reject it as credible.
I didnt say everyone did this. If you scrolled back and looked at my language, I said some did. Others are fine just accepting things on faith and not even claiming evidentiary status. Your citation is relevent to this latter group.