required by whom?

the rational

what sort of evidence then?



would personal experience do, for the rational individual?

i think he was talking about evidence which is available to all of us and not just those who "feel" it.

But I would think, one could still be considered a rational person, even though one only has personal experience, and evidence..



Say, if a flying saucer landed near you as you were taking a walk, and an alien got out and asked you the way; taking that sort of evidence seriously, for one's self, wouldn't make you irrational, even if you had no evidence to say it happened, other than some ordinary looking dents in the ground.

you are focussing on individual elements, when I am talking about elements affecting the whole population. "For the world of science to accept the supernatural, more than just personal anecdotes are required" is what I think he was getting at. That is certainly what I was getting at when I posted the quote.

i believe in silly and i'm not god!

Since I'm not as keen on this thread as when I first started a year and a half ago it I'm going to request that it be closed.



Blobbenstein and Adam, I guess you could continue your conversation in the "Should Science Declare War on Religion" thread since there have been similar thoughts expressed there already.



So if my request is granted, then the thread will be closed. If not, no biggie, but I won't post here anymore. And in my last post in this thread, dare I quote someone who doesn't believe in God (see post 418)? Yes, because it's one of my favourite posts (#442) in this thread:






Well said.

this thread has been closed at the OP's request.