"Something very powerful and supernatural* exists, doesn't seem to be hostile, and doesn't mind that I call it the Christian God."
For what it's worth, I'm .9+ confident of the following claims:
1) there exist phenomena in the universe that "human science" (1) doesn't commonly accept.
2) for any such phenomenon X, X doesn't mind that you call it the Christian God
3) for any such phenomenon X, X doesn't mind that you call it a figment of your imagination
4) for any such phenomenon X, X is not "hostile" (2) to humans
So it seems we agree on that much.
Indeed, I find it likely that most people on this site would agree on that much.
the amount of evidence that there is something supernatural* if far greater than the amount of evidence that there are millions of people lying about their experiences.
As above, I think the evidence supporting the idea that there exist phenomena in the universe that "human science" (1) doesn't commonly accept is pretty strong. The evidence supporting the idea that people lie about their experiences, confabulate their experiences, and have experiences that don't map to events outside their own brains despite seeming to, is also pretty strong. These aren't at all conflicting ideas; I am confident of them both.
Do you mean to suggest that, because there exist such phenomena, human reports are therefore credible? I don't see how you get from one to the other.
Seeing things that aren't there wold be a sign of something being very wrong with me
Not really, no. It happens to people all the time. I had the experience once of being visited by Prophetic Beings from Outside Time who had a Very Significant Message for me to impart to the masses. That doesn't mean I'm crazy. It also doesn't mean that Prophetic Beings from Outside Time have a Very Significant Message for me to impart to the masses.
either I and some others are insane with an unknown form of insanity, or there is something out there.
Again: there are almost certainly many things out there.
That doesn't mean that every experience you have is an accurate report of the state of the universe.
And if the particular experience you had turns out not to be an accurate report of the state of the universe, that doesn't mean you're insane.
==========
(1) Given what I think you mean by that phrase. For example, nuclear physics was outside the realm of what human science commonly accepted in the year 1750, so was supernatural then by this definition, although it is not now.
(2) Given what I think you mean by that phrase. For example, I assume the empty void of interstellar space is not considered hostile, even though it will immediately kill an unprotected human exposed to it.
A few notes about the site mechanics
A few notes about the community
If English is not your first language, don't let that make you afraid to post or comment. You can get English help on Discussion- or Main-level posts by sending a PM to one of the following users (use the "send message" link on the upper right of their user page). Either put the text of the post in the PM, or just say that you'd like English help and you'll get a response with an email address.
* Normal_Anomaly
* Randaly
* shokwave
* Barry Cotter
A note for theists: you will find the Less Wrong community to be predominantly atheist, though not completely so, and most of us are genuinely respectful of religious people who keep the usual community norms. It's worth saying that we might think religion is off-topic in some places where you think it's on-topic, so be thoughtful about where and how you start explicitly talking about it; some of us are happy to talk about religion, some of us aren't interested. Bear in mind that many of us really, truly have given full consideration to theistic claims and found them to be false, so starting with the most common arguments is pretty likely just to annoy people. Anyhow, it's absolutely OK to mention that you're religious in your welcome post and to invite a discussion there.
A list of some posts that are pretty awesome
I recommend the major sequences to everybody, but I realize how daunting they look at first. So for purposes of immediate gratification, the following posts are particularly interesting/illuminating/provocative and don't require any previous reading:
More suggestions are welcome! Or just check out the top-rated posts from the history of Less Wrong. Most posts at +50 or more are well worth your time.
Welcome to Less Wrong, and we look forward to hearing from you throughout the site.
(Note from orthonormal: MBlume and other contributors wrote the original version of this welcome message, and I've stolen heavily from it.)