Thank you for continuing this with me.
Which is something quite different from demanding evidence defined by a totally unrelated bias.
I'm speaking from the actual argument rather than some atheists intentions to demand evidence. More about the argument not the atheist themselves.
Whether I accept or reject the claim is irrelevant to the claim's voracity. I could be right or wrong either way. This is why I keep insisting that your or my "belief" or "unbelief" are irrelevant to the question at hand. The question at hand, via this analogy, is have these people been cured? And the only way to determine that (in the case of theistic validity) is to ask them.
Asking the persons isn't part of the analogy, though. If you told me that X amount of people were cured of COVID, I would, of course, ask you to demonstrate how. Wouldn't that make sense to ask you to support your claim?
(Assuming the people who were cured can't be literally contacted-say by phone or in person)
I mean, when I speak to my doctor and he says this medicine would work, I'd ask him what medicine it is, side affects, and hopefully trust him by the information he gives is correct. If he said he does not want to (or can) give evidence that the medicine works (and I can't talk to every patient who took it), why would I trust what he says?
Their 'defense' does not require proof. It only requires logical reasoning. It is not their responsibility to convince you, or anyone, of anything. It is only their responsibility to explain the reasons for their conceptual (pro)position.
Logical reasoning helps to make sense of the evidence they hope to obtain. It "should" require given proof before applying logical reasoning to discern if it is factually true. Ideally. I don't know why some atheist feel they can make a "fact-statement" god doesn't exist without evidence. But, in my view, I would need some form of data to make a confirmed statement on the existence of god.
In my personal experience, observation, and some discussion I concluded a deity-god does not exist. But in order to confirm the definition of god a believer actually believes in, they'd have to give me in their words (not Paul's and John's) what god is to make a sound conclusion either way.
Instead of convincing, defending, demanding, it's more of supporting your statement. Going back to the analogy, I wouldn't be demanding you to tell me the evidence of how X people were cured, I'm assuming that it would just be common sense to give evidence to support a claim.
I hope this relates to your comment. I was a little fuzzy on what you meant.
You are presuming, here, that YOU get to define existence, as objective and material. But you don't. Because your choices are just as subjective as everyone else's. If the proposition is personal, so will be the evidence, and the reasoning derived from that evidence. You can ignore the proposition, or you can listen to it, and consider it. But you don't get to redefine all the parameters and then proclaim it an invalid proposition. Which is what I find atheists doing in nearly every instance.
I had to re-read what I wrote. I don't see how my comment assumed or said I defined existence.
Is religion not personal?
I'm not following. Here's my statement:
"The problem is religion is personal. So, it does not make sense for any theist to say god exists and this is fact because in saying so, he is opening himself up to be questioned for his clarity and validity of his statement. It's nothing inherently personal."
If a theist says god exists as a fact he opens himself up to be questioned if this statement is true or not. Questioning theists (or anyone) about their claim is not inherently personal.
I can't see how this relates to what you think I intended.
Sure, because the proposition is, itself, not of a purely physical or objective nature. It's far more inclusive then that.
Yes. I know many atheists don't understand that. But, again, though, theists aren't giving them the criteria to make any sound decision either way. They are assuming that atheists "should know" the criteria and when the atheists ask questions about it, they get offended. It seems more they get offended over their presumption atheists already know what they are talking about. In many cases, we don't.
Why don't you just ask them HOW God exists? What do they means when they say their "God exists"? I would. Because it's obvious to me that God exists in some ways (as an idea, for example), while God does not exist in other ways (as a human being, for example). Asking for clarity is a normal part of philosophical discourse. Insisting on "objective proof", is not.
I do.
They say it's personal. Say they can't describe it in their own words. God is to great to be understood. You need faith not knowledge. I can't tell you cause you won't believe me. You need to be a believer to understand. God works in mysterious ways. I don't know but Paul, John, and Jesus knows...
How can an atheist or anyone for that matter, form any conclusion (or even prove god does not exist) from theists points when theist don't want to (or say they can't) give data for the atheist to agree or disagree with? or even know if they can prove the data is wrong or not?
Often, a course of reasoning IS the 'evidence'. Often, a personal experience IS the evidence. Often, the fact that the proposition 'works' for the person offering it, within the parameters he/she has set for determining it as a 'working', proposition, IS the evidence. Whether or not that's enough evidence to convince you or I is irrelevant. As after all, that is not anyone else's obligation, or responsibility.
Yes. It's better for the theist to say there is no objective evidence and say what you said instead.
Which begs the question what is your testimony....but many theists from many religions say it's too personal to share (given the reasons above).
I think you're getting confused, here, between the subject of proposing "faith in God", and proposing the "existence of God". These are different propositions with different courses of reasoning and different kinds of 'evidence' (that aside)
Oh. I was thinking theists (christians theists) believe in the existence of god because of faith not objective fact or knowledge. That's why I wonder why they say god exists as a fact when faith god exists is, by definition, a hope in things unseen are true not knowledge.
I see them related, how are they different?
I say this all the time. It doesn't help. Because the atheist already knows there is no objective evidence. That's why he's demanding it, and insisting that it must rise to the level of 'proof'.
I can see why that's a problem. I even asked atheists here on RF why do they ask for objective evidence when theist says it is not objective. But the problem is some theist contradict themselves as say god "does" exist as a fact while at the same time say it's not but faith. It gets atheists quite confused. Either you know god exists or you have faith he does.
The analogy is falling apart, here. No one has the "medicine". It's everywhere and free for the taking. So the only issue is does it work/will it work for me, if I need it. You can't answer those questions for me. You can only give me your evidence and reasons for claiming that it does, and will.
You're adding more to the analogy than there is.
True. I can only give you evidence and reasons. In the case of saying there is a cure, I would. But outside of the analogy, many theists don't give evidence and reasons "objectively"....
but my point is not that, but that they say god Does exist as a fact (objective) then say they can't give reasons and evidence that it is. That is confusing.
Or the other one .. 
