[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Sure. The point is that the average person is a mix of right and wrong and we all must interpret our subjective experiences to form our imperfect belief systems. So at what point does one imperfect belief system get to call another one “wrong” or “Irrational” Who gets to decide that and gets to declare their opinion more right than the alternatives? The majority? The scientists?
[/QUOTE]
Since you ask, I declare myself the ultimate arbiter of which beliefs are silly or not. You might disagree, and declare yourself the ultimate arbiter, but I reserve the right to declare that declaration itself a silly belief. 
If you want a univerally agreed-upon arbiter, I would propose you already accept scientists (or at least the concensus of them) as such an arbiter for everything you don’t have a preconcieved belief about. Can you say that about a concensus of priests of various beliefs? (Assuming you could get a concensus from such a group at all.)
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I agree. I think there’s a major difference between believing things in spite of volumes of evidence against X being true and believing something is true with no evidence for or against.
[/QUOTE]
Well, an absence of evidence is evidence of absence…just not conclusive evidence of absence.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
And once again, the nature of religious beliefs is much more and much deeper than just objective physical evidence. It’s inappropriate to judge them solely on objective evidence.
[/QUOTE]
Special pleading. Unless you’re going to say that belief in the Smurfs™ is much more and much deeper than physical evidence?
Yes, people with religious beliefs often have subjective evidence amongst their reasons for believing. If you’re calling that evidence ‘much more and deeper’, though, you’re demonstrating a level of bias that makes me doubt that that subjective evidence is being assessed, um, objectively.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If I’m doing all that then I’d suspect I’m super human or just not human. I’d hope for some personal honesty and placing a high value on the truth.
[/QUOTE]
Well, we can try.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Then that would be your perspective not his wouldn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and from my perspective, he seems to have accepted it as evidence when I am not convinced he should have. We are allowed to have opinions of other people’s decisions, as academic and irrelevent as those opinions may be.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
A sincere spiritual experience can be and often is an epiphany and from my experience in knowing and talking to lots of Christians and other religious people they are more common than you think.
[/QUOTE]
I will concede that if you use a definition of ‘epiphany’ that includes “any religious or spiritual apparition or vision”, then everybody and their pet rock has had an epiphany. However, that’s not what I mean when I use the word, and I don’t think that’s what Liberal meant when he said an epiphany “is actually the only kind of evidence that I would be personally willing to accept”. So, no, by the definition of epiphany I’m using here, I am quote sure that very, very few people have had them.
Well then I guess I won’t limit him by defining him as “existing” or “being real”, then. 
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Whether we can detect it yet or not, if it exists, it has matter and/or energy. There is a lot out there that we have yet to detect, but until it is shown otherwise, there is nothing that exists that we are absolutely prohibited forever from detecting.
[/QUOTE]
I fully agree that there is nothing that exists in or interacting with this universe that we are prohibited from detecting. I’m afraid I remain agnostic on the subject of everything that exists having matter and/or energy, though.