…Continued

<<This shows a disregard to evidance in general …>>

No, it doesn’t. I am very open to evidence when it’s reliable, and can spot bad evidence when I see it. That’s why I’m no longer a Christian.

<<This last statement is an approach agnostics take.>>

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive: http://imgur.com/nzOxfIA

<<These rationales for disregarding Christian or religious observations are well tight nit to avoid actually looking.>>

No, they’re not. I look. I’ve spent many posts with you demonstrating that. The problem is, however, that you (or any other theist) have not overcome the problem that is the fact that there are more rational explanations for these so-called experiences, and even when there aren’t, there is no reason to believe that no explanations will ever be found or that a god is responsible for them. As I’ve pointed out before, what kind of a god plays silly buggers with “experiences”?

On the contrary, assuming that a god is behind the experiences is a good way to stop looking. It’s gullibility. It is where investigation ends. It’s lazy.

Just imagine where we’d be if we continued doing that over the millennia?

If we were to destroy all science books now, in a thousand years’ time, humans would figure it all out again because the facts are rational and reliable and objective. The same could not be said for religion if we were to destroy all holy books now. This is a problem for your religious beliefs and so-called evidence for God.

<<The best that sometimes can be offered if you can't settle on an explanation is that it's a mystery (as you've said).>>

Yes, but a mystery isn’t a conclusion, nor is it evidence of a god. There’s also no reason to believe that the mystery can never be solved. Mysteries are solved all the time and, as Toni Lavis points out, the gaps which gods hide in become increasingly small until they disappear into a puff of sophisticated theology or logic.

On the other hand, here is some evidence in favour of a divine Jesus that I had not previously considered:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-muWrq7UQvGA/VKYq1vcl8tI/AAAAAAAAqdE/WzXtGX9TZoA/s1600/h3C9C36BC.jpg

AJ Phillips.

[I’ll happily admit that some of what I say is to trip people up. It is, after all, a good way to get them thinking. Either way, if one’s position is sound, then one cannot be tripped up.]

Not everyone is great at debating, nor at addressing logical fallacies and mind games used against them. I'd say intentionally tripping someone up will usually end up with the person being frustrated, not enlightened. So be careful with this rationelle. It can be a horrible excuse to act dishonestly, or brutally. (Or to encourage the other person to do the same back to you, thus completely avoiding the position they held regardless of it's merit).

[No, it was a perfectly reasonable observation.]

The observation might be true, but the way you've applied it becomes an excuse to disregard a person based on their conclusions regardless of merit. Reasonable people should be given the benefit of their good sense until they show a lack of sense in one aspect or another. Not the other way around.

I'm making these points because you've collected several perspectives that close in on you from seeing outside of them. They close your mind to the possibility of God. I want you to be aware of this.

[I would note that it is theists who still bear the burden of proof.]

I disagree. The burden of proof first falls on the people who seek out the truth. If it is important to them they have the burden to seek out what is true and what isn't. Kind of like a buyer beware mentality. In order to find good new stuff the buyer needs to be open enough to look at other stuff, but to find out if the item is worth their money and time it's their burden to determine if the salesman's pitch is trustworthy or not.

Second to that, the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim. If you disagree with a theist and make a claim that they are wrong. The burden then falls on you to support that. Not on them to disprove you. The same is true in reverse, if a theist has a claim they wish to share with you, it's their burden to support it.

That said, I would go a different route then worry about who holds the burden. If something is important enough to say, then say it. If you can support it great, but if not then it's out of your hands. Sometimes you have to do what you can and move on.

Not_Now.Soon,

It’s not about being great at debating. Nor is it about mind games.

<<Not everyone is great at debating, nor at addressing logical fallacies and mind games used against them.>>

Once again, if your position is sound (okay, I’ll add: and you understand it adequately (which should always be the case anyway)), then the risk of being tripped up shouldn’t be a problem.

<<I'd say intentionally tripping someone up will usually end up with the person being frustrated, not enlightened.>>

Not if they are open to reason.

<<… the way you've applied [the observation] becomes an excuse to disregard a person based on their conclusions regardless of merit.>>

No, it doesn’t. Not in any way shape or form. it was a simple observation. You are drawing more from it than was meant.

<<Reasonable people should be given the benefit of their good sense until they show a lack of sense in one aspect or another Not the other way around.>>

It matters not who says what, but how sound the reasoning behind what they say is.

<<… you've collected several perspectives that close in on you from seeing outside of them. They close your mind to the possibility of God.>>

My mind is not closed on the possibility of a god, and nothing I have said should suggest this.

<<The burden of proof first falls on the people who seek out the truth.>>

No, it doesn’t. It falls on the one making the claim: http://goo.gl/sUz7ky

<<Kind of like a buyer beware mentality.>>

No, it’s not like the ‘buyer beware’ caution at all, because the burden is on the seller to be honest.

<<… the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim.>>

NOW you’ve got it!

<<If you disagree with a theist and make a claim that they are wrong. The burden then falls on you to support that.>>

Yes, provided I make the claim that they are wrong. There’s a third option, though, and that is one of scepticism. There is no burden of proof in a position of scepticism.

//Reasonable people should be given the benefit of their good sense until they show a lack of sense in one aspect or another.//

Nope, arguments stand or fall on their own merits. The identity of the person making an argument has no bearing whatsoever on the strength or weakness of that argument. Doesn't matter if it's J.S. Mill himself: if he makes a crap argument, it's still a crap argument even if he's had good form in the past.

And it works the other way around as well: if by some bizzare twist of fate the Trumpenfuhrer was to somehow come up with some good policy, it would still be good policy despite Trump's previous form.