A lot of the time, it's the same answers someone else has given and
Sort of... I'm saying that most religious people I know all say the same thing about God, which is that they know God via a personal relationship - a direct one-to-one connection. But, when it comes to their beliefs, they are lock, stock and barrel the same as everyone else from the same religion, because they accept that their holy book is the word of God and allow that text to define what they should and should not believe.
So, on the one hand they are claiming that God communicates with them directly, while on the other they take God's word from the same source as everyone else in that religion.
My point is that, if God (or Gods) really do communicate with people directly, then what do they need holy books for?
But what is the defintion of directly? is hearing and answering your prayers considered Direct? no religion tells you that when you ask for God you will actually hear someone talking back, Holy books are teachings and rules by God sort to speak which isn't strictly communication between you and God.
they're already refuted, so it makes sense.
Why is 15 to 1 significant?
Sounds reasonable, but then you need to figure out what's static and what's not. How you do this varies wildly from religion to religion or even between individuals, and worse than that some of it just isn't logical.
There is perception, and then there is reality. You took an event a certain way, but you could be miles off what actually happened. Reality is what we'd be interested in here, and the way to find reality is the scientific method. So you would need to turn to science to confirm your feelings. Just going with your feelings won't get you anywhere.