I don't believe you're interested in evidence any more than he is. So far his tactics have been to insult, to fail to back up his claims, and to assert that only science can be used to know things (while denying it).
And his argument is a straw man because he invents some cheap materialistic trick to compare with something nowhere near cheap, definitely not materialistic, and hardly a trick. At least, last time I checked, people didn't preach something they knew to be a lie and willingly face death for that lie.
People died (and continue to do so) not just at the hand of, but on behalf of, the North Korean regime. It tells us only that they believe the lie, not that the lie is real. On the topic of materialism, I might have thought you would have more reverence for the material world given your understanding of its source. Six days, metaphorical or not, is a lot of work put into this universe we're bumping around in. Much as one can view a hologram from any angle, I would think if there were a god he'd be perceptible not just from revelation but from any angle, including the "mundane" artefacts of his creative endeavours. That, and you're known for your well established position that, god given or not, we have brains. I don't see trickery. Nor do I see how materialism is cheap.
Do you mean scientific evidence? If so, you're doing the same thing youfiad does: asserting that someone else's faith position is invalid because it doesn't conform to his faith position.
That's the root failure of almost all atheists who zealously attack religion: they're attacking people for having faith, but that's the very thing they're operating on when they insist that science is the only valid measure of things.
Because of that no evidence anyone brings is going to be accepted: you're all already determined not to accept anything that's not scientific. That's a position of faith just as fanatic as that of the young earth Creationists.
I mean any evidence I can ask questions about.
It is a given that I think your position is invalid, as you would say about mine; we hold impressions of existence which are not evidently reconcilable. I'm interested in an approach to the problem that would be viewed as legitimate by believers and non-believers (or, say, you and I) which would thus allow at least one of us to change his mind.
I don't even think your impression of atheism as a position of faith is relevant to that question, any more than a dialogue between an animist and a jew which might lead to either changing his mind.
So my unanswered question remains: what is it about testimony that permits you to conclude it is reliable instead of concluding as I do that it is generally woefully inadequate. I'm not asking for divine DNA or footage of the Burning Bush captured with a FLIR camera or anything. What is it about testimony that is convincing? I don't see it. Thus, the question.
If, incidentally, my question is to be treated as an insult, it tells me something of great interest to string theorists and esoteric brane-theorists and so on; we are now operating in a universe of reverse polarity where plain questions equal insults and vice-versa.
Thus, a question for youfiad:
Go to hell, you trolling bastard. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.*
*that is to say: Would you accept evidence for the reality of the divine if you had the opportunity to ask questions about the quality of the evidence, how exactly something constitutes evidence, how it supports the idea of divinity, and receive reasoned answers?
Where did I say atheism was a position of faith? I'll take this chance, though, to say that for some it is, for some it isn't.