Ecurb: I think when we talk about evidence, we have to be careful exactly what it is evidence of. A person's account of a particular experience, like seeing a chair or a dog or a ghost or a resurrection, is, first and foremost, evidence of that person's subjective experience, not necessarily of an objective event. We can then look for likely explanations for that experience - consistent models that can be used to link the experience into a pattern.

If someone tells me they've seen a ghost, I'm less likely to fit that experience into a model of objective reality than if they tell me they've seen a chair. This is because the model, based on past experiences, that I have in my head of an objectively existing world of physical objects like chairs is more consistently supported by universal patterns in experiences than a model that includes objectively existing ghosts. So it works better.

Ecurb:

We accept the chair sighting because it conforms to our notion of reality; we deny the ghost sighting because it does not.

True, but I would emphasize that this notion of reality is a mental model based on experience, not just some kind of prejudice. Our "worldview" is an aggregate of experiences. I agree with you that any claim of a sighting of anything (be it chairs, unicorns or resurrections) constitutes at least some evidence in favour of a model of the world that includes that thing's objective existence, unless there is a stronger (i.e. more consistently supported by experiences) model that includes an alternative interpretation of that experience. There may be strong reasons, given knowledge of human psychology, to accept alternative models.

For example, if I see what appears to be a face in the flickering flames of my fire I might have two alternative models to explain this: (1) there is a human face in my fire (2) there is a strong human psychological tendency to see patterns, and particularly faces, in complex collections of light and dark. The second alternative is probably more strongly supported by past evidence.

Likewise, we might argue that there is a strong human tendency to worship heroes and a difficulty in conceiving of the termination of consciousness. Something like that, only more sophisticated and better worded, might form the basis of a stronger model to explain experiences of resurrections.

Maybe. Who knows.

Ecurb: True! It's important to remember that almost everything we think we know was told to us by somebody else and accepted, in some sense, on trust.

Fanman:

I believe that genuine belief in God and genuine Christianity (that is, the upholding of Christ's message) applied to life, has a positive effect not only on the life of the individual who believes, but also on the lives of those who are close to the believer, by the virtue of the believers actions.

Personally, I have no argument with that. I think there is a strong case to be made that Christianity, at least, has, on balance, a beneficial effect on the societies in which it is practiced. I certainly don't buy the "root of all evil" claim. I most certainly don't agree with all of the standard moral positions of Christianity, but I can't argue with its central message.

But I would make a distinction between factual claims and beneficial effects. It's perfectly possible for something to be beneficial without being factually correct.

in life is it reasonable or fair to dismiss someone's personal experiences, because they do not conform to the known patterns of scientific reasoning, or what one believes is possible?

I don't think it's fair to dismiss them and tell that person that they shouldn't hold those beliefs. People can hold whatever beliefs they like. But I don't see anything wrong with challenging factual claims if they seem to be false.

If Christianity is based upon something that is not real, how does one explain its efficacy in people's lives? Are all Christians who claim to of had spiritual experiences self-delusional?

It depends what you mean by "not real". It's perfectly possible to have a real beneficial effect, and therefore be very desirable, without being factually accurate. I can see why some people might classify religious experiences as "self delusion" but, if those experiences are enjoyable and fullfilling, then I guess there's nothing wrong with a bit of self delusion from time to time.