Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Belz...]

Chalk one more up for the inefficient, incompetent Abrahamic God.

Well he DID flood the world instead of just wishing the sinners out of reality...

 

[Belz...]

When I specify sane adults, I'm disregarding testimony from people who are known to have difficulty separating reality from fantasy. That's hardly an arbitrary disregard of testimony that I don't agree with. It seems to me that it is you who are committing that particularly fallacy.

I think you didn't read properly. Lonewulf is saying that YOU are disregarding children's testimony for no reason.

How can a hypothesis of 'mass hallucination' be falsified?

They DO happen, you know.

 

[Lonewulf]

When I specify sane adults, I'm disregarding testimony from people who are known to have difficulty separating reality from fantasy.

Grown adults do not have that difficulty? How would you describe psychics and those that pay them money?

If all adults were able to separate reality from fantasy, I would be far less infuriarated with people that hold certain silly beliefs...

Also, all I have to do is state that religious people that have "visions" are unable to separate fiction from reality. There we go. You throw out kids, I throw out god-talkers.

That's hardly an arbitrary disregard of testimony that I don't agree with. It seems to me that it is you who are committing that particularly fallacy. You are disregarding the testimony of anyone who claims to have had a religious experience because you disagree with them.

Actually, you are the one that accepts the testimony of anyone that talks about "God". But the IPU or Santa Clause? Get outta here.

So, you arbitrarily disregard testimony you don't agree with. Got it.

Nope.

How can a hypothesis of 'mass hallucination' be falsified? If a skeptic wished to dispute such an explanation, how would you prove to a skeptic that your explanation is the correct one?

Actually, you are the one that is claiming that your "vision" is true. I would demand evidence, through outside objective sources, that your vision is true. If none can be provided, then I would disregard such testimony or accept a simpler explanation. For instance: I can believe that your vision is proof that God exists, that there is Heaven and Hell, and that we all have souls... or I could use Occam's Razor.

Quite right. First, my observations of people who do provide such evidence is that it isn't a civil discussion at all, but an invitation to a mass attack. Second, I'm not a believer in any particular deity, so I can hardly present you with evidence I personally find convincing.

Then I rest my case, since there is no case to debate. You just have handwaved "evidence" that I can't even peruse. I'm not interested.

You've added the part about my claiming the belief is true.

Actually, I added in believers claiming that their beliefs are true. Or else Christians are sitting in church on their knees wallowing in their sins for a false God, and I'm pretty sure that's not their goal.

I haven't done that. I'm only saying that if the evidence is not compelling either way (and it isn't) then theism and atheism are both rational conclusions that a skeptic can come to.

That's like saying that since there isn't evidence of unicorns, but you can't claim that no unicorns exist ever, belief in unicorns existing and belief in them not existing are both equally rational. I'm unconvinced that such a position is rational.

 

[Belz...]

What's IPU, again ?

 

[Belz...]

I haven't done that. I'm only saying that if the evidence is not compelling either way (and it isn't) then theism and atheism are both rational conclusions that a skeptic can come to.

Not quite.

 

[Egg]

...

In short, it is the predictive power of empirical skepticism that makes it such a powerful tool.

Good post again!

I would say that you pretty much answered the question: "what empirical evidence is there to prove that empirical evidence is a reliable method for seeking proof?", which is no mean feat. One issue I can see here though, is that to measure the predictive power, we would have to use a reliable method to test the results of the predictions, such as skepticism, but that means we would be using skepticism to measure if skepticism is accurately predicting anything, which I would have thought was the same sort of circular reasoning which dogmatic biblical literalists are often accused of.

Also I'm not sure that we can objectively establish if skepticism is the only way of establishing proof or if it is always a reliable way.

Yes, I am using the words interchangeably, as if a belief is irrational, it is unreasonable to hold that belief. And see my earlier post for the answer to your second question - in short, that he has a blind spot (in this case likely a temporary blind spot) does not stop him from being a skeptic, it just means that he's human. He should apply skepticism more rigorously, but making one mistake doesn't change him from being a skeptic to being a woo proponent. It just means that he has to be more careful.

Do you think there is an objective way to establish if a particular belief is irrational?

But that is partly the point - he may not have any evidence that what he saw was a hoax, but hoaxes do happen (and if they're good then you hopefully wouldn't know that you'd been hoaxed), so at least there is a precedent for that opinion. He may not believe that he and his friends were hallucinating, but hallucinations are not at all uncommon, and so there is at least a precedent for that opinion. So far we haven't seen empirical evidence for the existence of even one Loch Ness Monster, so that opinion is entirely without basis or precedent.

That would be entirely dependant on the method by which he arrived at his estimate of probability.

I can't think of a way, but that isn't to say I necessarily think you must be wrong here. The problem from an objective point of view is that either the monster exists or it doesn't. The only "maybe" is in the guy's head. Using this example, can you suggest any way he could arrive at an objective estimate of the probability of the monster's existence?

At the first two points there is still no additional empirical evidence supporting the idea that what he saw was a lake monster - after all, the only possibility that has really been ruled out is that he was under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs. There are other causes of hallucinations, and the idea that he couldn't have been hoaxed is really no more than an argument from incredulity. The second point simply introduces the tabloid media and some unreliable, blurry and easily faked photographs into the mix - not good evidence for the monster.

At points three and four it becomes more reasonable to believe in the monster as more evidence comes to light. I would suggest that accepting the preliminary jounalistic report in point three as completely accurate without further investigation would still be jumping he gun - the report would give a reason to suspect that it is more likely that something exists, but until the final report is released it is still too early to really believe the monster exists.

As for the report that offers an alternate explanation, without knowing the weight and likelihood of the alternative explanation as opposed to the explanation put forward in the positive report, I cannot make an informed statement as to where one should lend their belief.

Just from my own subjective point of view, I don't see how the scientific team have done a great deal to make the story any more convincing than say looking straight into the eyes of the monster. The newspaper could be paying them to create a big story, their equipment might be faulty, I don't know them personally or have personal experience of how trustworthy I'd judge them to be. The peer reviews add some credence, but for a big story, a newspaper might pay some scientists to write such reviews, or the original team might have shown real methods but faked the results. Is there a good reason to trust their supposed expertise over our own experience?

If I did my own experiments in my basement on something, would it be reasonable to believe my own results?

I'm still a little uncertain as to how much a person should apply skepticism to be called a skeptic. As you mentioned earlier, it is a powerful tool and useful for testing claims. To be called a skeptic, it seems to be a danger of becoming dogma. Should you apply skepticism to all parts of your life in order to keep the label? Why might it be reasonable to trust subjective experience to judge whether it's raining, but not to judge if seeing the black cat in your path has changed your luck? Or maybe a true skeptic shouldn't believe that it's raining without compelling objective evidence. Is there a line and what would that be based on?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, except for the obvious difference in material claims (crystals versus pendulum). They are distinct, therefore, by virtue of their material differences.

But are they distinct as beliefs? They both believe in the "energies" - the crystals and pendulum can easily be argued as mere instruments of the beliefs.

What difference does it make if a person holds a belief in absence of evidence, as opposed to holding a belief due to faulty or unreliable evidence? I have already said, one blind spot does not stop a person being a skeptic. More than one and it likely stops being a 'blind spot' and becomes more likely that the person does not have a good grasp of skepticism.

It makes all the difference in the world. A skeptical world.

Someone, maybe you, should become a televangelist basing your dogma and requests for funds on one or more of them, then.

Aren't you surprised no one has yet done so? The business by most appearances is lucrative.

By all accounts, plenty of people have done so.

I state I haven't been. As to others who claim to have been, unknown.

What is the basis for your claim of Millions?

John Mack and his alien abduction stories. He included so many traits found in abductees that it would mean that a couple of million Americans are abducted.

Beth,

What about the countless adults who also had experiences at Cova da Iria?

 

[Beth]

Grown adults do not have that difficulty?

Children and lunatics are known to have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy as sane adults. Do you really think their testimony should be regarded as equal to that of sane adults?

How would you describe psychics and those that pay them money?

I regard professional psychics as entertainers (that's generally how they advertise their services) and those who pay them as easily amused.

If all adults were able to separate reality from fantasy, I would be far less infuriarated with people that hold certain silly beliefs...
Also, all I have to do is state that religious people that have "visions" are unable to separate fiction from reality. There we go. You throw out kids, I throw out god-talkers.

Okay. But you are arbitrarily dismissing testimony you don't like because you don't agree with it, whereas I am dismissing testimony because there is evidence that certain groups of people (children and lunatics) have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality. I would reject testimony from those same people for the same reason on entirely different subjects. Attorneys would try to avoid puting such folks on the witness stand because their testimony is not considered as reliable as that of a sane adult. Whereas you presumably would accept personal testimony from the same group (god believers) on other subjects. No reason to exclude such people from testifying in a court of law. While you are certainly entitled to your subjective opinion on the matter, hopefully you will understand it comes across as what you are accusing me of: an arbitraty rejection of testimony you don't agree with because you don't agree with it.

Actually, you are the one that accepts the testimony of anyone that talks about "God". But the IPU or Santa Clause? Get outta here.

Not quite. I don't automatically reject the testimony of a sane adult on any of those subjects, I just have yet to meet a sane adult who gives testimony to the existance of the IPU or Santa Claus in anything other than an internet forum. And no, I don't take everything I read on the internet as true.

Actually, you are the one that is claiming that your "vision" is true. I would demand evidence, through outside objective sources, that your vision is true.

What 'vision' do you think I have claimed is true?

If none can be provided, then I would disregard such testimony or accept a simpler explanation. For instance: I can believe that your vision is proof that God exists, that there is Heaven and Hell, and that we all have souls... or I could use Occam's Razor.

It's fine if you want to disregard such testimony. It certainly can't be proven to be true. All I'm saying is that I don't automatically reject such testimony as untrue. Neither do I assume it is true.

Then I rest my case, since there is no case to debate. You just have handwaved "evidence" that I can't even peruse. I'm not interested.

Well, it's been an interresting discussion. Nice talking with you.

That's like saying that since there isn't evidence of unicorns, but you can't claim that no unicorns exist ever, belief in unicorns existing and belief in them not existing are both equally rational. I'm unconvinced that such a position is rational.

No, I'm saying that the evidence for unicorns is much weaker than the evidence for god because I'm unaware of any sane adults that will provide personal testimony to the existance of a unicorn. Thus, while I have seen testimonial evidence for the existance of god, i have yet to see any such evidence for the existance of unicorns.

 

[-Fran-]

What's IPU, again ?

Invisible Pink Unicorn?

 

[Dancing David]

Children and lunatics are known to have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy as sane adults. Do you really think their testimony should be regarded as equal to that of sane adults?

What children lack is cynicism, you are wrong, they can often very accurately describe things as they see them. They are concrete but also gullible.

They are very credible witnesses.

The point again Beth is that the explanation given for the experience of god is not reasonable, that at diety exists. there are many biological mechanisms that explain the experience.

the perception is reasonable, the explanation is unreasonable.

 

[hammegk]

Originally Posted by martillo
Someone, maybe you, should become a televangelist basing your dogma and requests for funds on one or more of them, then.

Aren't you surprised no one has yet done so? The business by most appearances is lucrative

By all accounts, plenty of people have done so.

My comment, if you will recall, related to IPUs and FSMs. What facts do you have that show cults led by televangelists forming around them?

Not counting here, of course, since Randi seems stuck in cyberspace for his fund raising efforts.

Or are you citing televised mass-marketing involking Santa? If so that is another topic.

John Mack and his alien abduction stories. He included so many traits found in abductees that it would mean that a couple of million Americans are abducted.

You stated " If the higher number of reports indicates a higher probability of existence, do you similarly believe that millions of Americans have been abducted by aliens? ".

That implied you believe millions of americans claim they were abducted, not that a crackpot claimed it for them. Are you usually this imprecise in your arguments?

 

[Belz...]

Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Got it!

 

[Mobyseven]

I'd phrase that slightly differently. My take on it is that if a belief is widely held and there is no evidence against it, it seems entirely reasonable for a person to hold that belief. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence against the existance of a deity.

Of course you'd phrase it slightly differently Beth - because otherwise it doesn't agree with you. Unfortunately, your take on a reasonable belief is ridiculous - whereas my criteria was that there not be any evidence supporting an alternate hypothesis, you say it is enough that there not be any evidence against a claim.

By your reasoning, the following are reasonable to believe in:

• Yahweh
• Santa
• Fairies
• Goblins
• Homeopathy
• Reincarnation
• Telepathy
• Telekinesis
• Bigfoot
• The Loch Ness Monster
• Loki
• Vishnu
• Krishna
• Kali
• Vampires
• Werewolves
• Unicorns
• Invisible Unicorns
• Invisible Pink Unicorns

And that is only a partial list.

The issue here is that you can't prove a negative. This means, and I want to state this clearly because if this thread devolves into yet another 'Yes you can prove a negative' thread I'm going to scream, that you cannot prove a negated universal statement. Yes, given a small enough universe you would be able to, but we don't live in a small enough universe.

Following on, because we can't prove a negative, we cannot provide any evidence for the non-existence of anything. Ever. Therefore, to state that it is reasonable to believe in something so long as there is no evidence against it is ridiculous - it is the same as saying that it is reasonable to believe in anything.

In summary: You're wrong.

So it's only irrational if interpreted in a strict literal sense. I agree. I don't actually interpret it literally either. But the same is true of most religious texts, they are irrational only if interpreted literally. I don't think any of the religious skeptics (the ones posting here anyway) are accepting strict literal interpretations of their religious texts.

Don't change the subject, Beth. We aren't talking about scriptural interpretation here, we're talking about the existence of god. All the religions in the world could be wrong and god could still theoretically exist - they are separate questions, and we are dealing with the latter here.

It really gets on my nerve when you topic jump like that.

We draw conclusions from the evidence we have available. If all we have is anecdotal evidence, that's what we use. I agree, it's less likely to be correct, but that's doesn't imply that a conclusion from anecdotal evidence is incorrect or that it is invalid to draw a conclusion from such evidence. We simply have to be aware that the probability of a correct conclusion is lower.

The issue isn't that the probability of a correct conclusion is lower, Beth, the issue is that the probability of a correct conclusion is so incredibly low that any correct conclusion you come to based upon anecdotal evidence will be correct purely by chance. A conclusion based on anecdotal evidence is no different to a blind guess - it might be right, but its being right is pretty much independant of what anecdotal evidence you were exposed to.

I think there is a difference between blinding believing any and everyone's account of their religious experiences and dismissing all testimonial evidence as invalid.

Well, duh. They're pretty much opposite approaches - you think there is a difference?

Atheists can be as arrogant as theists regarding the correctness of their conclusions. It seems to me that both theism and atheism are reasonable conclusions that people can come to when they honestly examine all the evidence available.

I'm sorry, what? Kindly point out what it is that atheists have concluded aside from, "There is, to a likelihood of 99.9999...%, no god." More than that, find me a skeptical atheist who would not change his or her mind if there actually was evidence of god.

Arrogant indeed, Beth.

When I specify sane adults, I'm disregarding testimony from people who are known to have difficulty separating reality from fantasy.

This is called 'begging the question', Beth, and it's a logical fallacy. We should discount anecdotal evidence of Santa because it comes from people who have trouble separating reality from fantasy. But we should accept the anecdotal evidence of god, because it comes from sane people.

But what if god doesn't exist? Well, then the people who claim anecdotal evidence of god are also people who have trouble separating reality from fantasy (as they claim to have anecdotal evidence of an imaginary being), and we should therefore discount their testimony.

So, by your own logic, if god exists then their testimony can be accepted. If god doesn't exist, then their testimony should be discarded.

It still doesn't tell us anything about the actual existence of god, and it's still not evidence for the existence of god - not even by your own criteria.


Lastly, for voidx:

There's no logical line that can be drawn to seperate between a skeptic and a non-skeptic. 1 woo belief but not 2? Seems arbitrary. And leaving it as an absolute is also indefensible. It would invalidate a portion of well established posters even on here as non-skeptics as they have a belief in God. When they are clearly very logically skeptical about a great many other topics and beliefs.

Yes, I admit that it is somewhat arbitrary. My reasoning was that while it might be acceptable for a person to have one blind spot, more than that and it is likely that the person has not fully understood skepticism.

The more I think about it though, the more it seems like an example of a sorites paradox. I favour the 'epistemological solution' to that particular paradox, and I am tempted to say, therefore, that there is a certain number of woo beliefs that demarcate skeptics and non-skeptics, but that we do not and cannot know where this boundary is!

 

[Mobyseven]

Good post again!

Thankyou.

I would say that you pretty much answered the question: "what empirical evidence is there to prove that empirical evidence is a reliable method for seeking proof?", which is no mean feat. One issue I can see here though, is that to measure the predictive power, we would have to use a reliable method to test the results of the predictions, such as skepticism, but that means we would be using skepticism to measure if skepticism is accurately predicting anything, which I would have thought was the same sort of circular reasoning which dogmatic biblical literalists are often accused of.

Also I'm not sure that we can objectively establish if skepticism is the only way of establishing proof or if it is always a reliable way.

A simple test would be, "Do the findings obtained through skeptical research apply to all people, or only those people who believe skepticism to be valid?"

I can think of plenty of examples (Modern medicine and computers to name but two), but I can't think of anything discovered through skeptical research that would be a counter-example.

If the findings are applicable outside of those people who believe in the methods used to obtain them, then they are a better approximation of reality than something that cannot be applied universally.

As for whether skepticism is always reliable - so far it has been. Of course, adopting a skeptical view I have to concede that in the future it is possible that we may find a situation in which skepticism doesn't work. But until that counter-example is found, if it even exists, it is reasonable to say that skepticism always works to the same degree of certainty as I can say that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

Do you think there is an objective way to establish if a particular belief is irrational?

When skepticism is applied, does the belief stand up to scrutiny? If yes, then it is not irrational, if no then it is irrational.

I can't think of a way, but that isn't to say I necessarily think you must be wrong here. The problem from an objective point of view is that either the monster exists or it doesn't. The only "maybe" is in the guy's head. Using this example, can you suggest any way he could arrive at an objective estimate of the probability of the monster's existence?

Apologies, I misunderstood the original question. No, for an objective estimate he would need more information than what he has at that point.

Just from my own subjective point of view, I don't see how the scientific team have done a great deal to make the story any more convincing than say looking straight into the eyes of the monster. The newspaper could be paying them to create a big story, their equipment might be faulty, I don't know them personally or have personal experience of how trustworthy I'd judge them to be. The peer reviews add some credence, but for a big story, a newspaper might pay some scientists to write such reviews, or the original team might have shown real methods but faked the results. Is there a good reason to trust their supposed expertise over our own experience?

With all due respect, that's not how peer review works. The objections you raise are the very things that peer review is designed to catch - that it has passed such a process is indicative of a reasonable degree of scientific rigour.

One would also not want to posit some sort of scientific peer review conspiracy without any evidence to support the claim.

If I did my own experiments in my basement on something, would it be reasonable to believe my own results?

Depends on whether or not your results could stand up to scrutiny or not.

I'm still a little uncertain as to how much a person should apply skepticism to be called a skeptic. As you mentioned earlier, it is a powerful tool and useful for testing claims. To be called a skeptic, it seems to be a danger of becoming dogma. Should you apply skepticism to all parts of your life in order to keep the label? Why might it be reasonable to trust subjective experience to judge whether it's raining, but not to judge if seeing the black cat in your path has changed your luck? Or maybe a true skeptic shouldn't believe that it's raining without compelling objective evidence. Is there a line and what would that be based on?

You should apply skepticism in all parts of your life, yes, but to have a blind spot is to simply be human.

Also, you say that to judge whether or not it is raining we use subjective experience - I don't quite follow your reasoning here. I can see the rain, as can any others underneath or near the rain cloud. I can hear the rain - again, as can others. And most importantly, if I step into the rain, I will get wet - something that I and others can objectively observe.

I don't see how you can claim that it is subjective evidence we use to tell us whether or not it is raining...

 

[hammegk]

Of course you'd phrase it slightly differently Beth - because otherwise it doesn't agree with you. Unfortunately, your take on a reasonable belief is ridiculous - whereas my criteria was that there not be any evidence supporting an alternate hypothesis, you say it is enough that there not be any evidence against a claim.

By your reasoning, the following are reasonable to believe in:

• Yahweh
• Santa
• Fairies
• Goblins
• Loki
• Vishnu
• Krishna
• Kali
• Reincarnation

And that is only a partial list.

Assigning probability=nil to each of those says nothing about "god".

• Homeopathy
• Telepathy
• Telekinesis
• Bigfoot
• The Loch Ness Monster

What do those have to do with belief or disbelief in "god"?

• Vampires
• Werewolves
• Invisible Unicorns
• Invisible Pink Unicorns

You appear to have an active imagination.

• Unicorns

People could be gentically engineering one as we speak.

 

[qayak]

Just to clarify my position on this issue, I never suggested the 50/50 thing. What I was trying to say is that in the case of determining the existence of something which we have insufficient empirical evidence to prove, assigning some kind of percentage probability is entirely subjective.

In other words, whether you believe that there's a 99.99% or 50% chance (or even just that's it's unlikely) that an undefined deity exists, that belief can be no more objective than a blind faith theist believing 100% or a strong atheist believing 0%. There is no definitive empirical evidence to base such estimates on, so such beliefs are all lacking objectivity.

Disagree. The fact that there is much evidence ont he matter is what allows for objectivity. We might dispute exactly what the likelyhood is but rational people would not deny that the evidence is far stronger for one position than the other.

My view is simple. No evidence for christian god = 0% chance that he exists based on the 2000 years of searching and the evidence. For me, the subjective part is deciding how much allowance I will give that new evidence will come to light. 0.1% seems reasonable to me. So I am 99.9% sure god does not exist, not because there is anything to suggest he does, only because I allow for uncertainty.

 

[articulett]

They are all things that many people believe in-- but for which there is no measurable evidence. People are known to be pretty easy to fool and make some strong mis perceptions in certain areas. God is one of those areas. We know for certain many have been wrong. If Zeus was a myth-- than millions were wrong. If Allah isn't rewarding the hijackers than Muslims are wrong... If the Heavens Gate Crowd didn't go on a spaceship, then they killed themselves for a strong belief--that they really truly believed-- but it wasn't true. And they were people who were smart enough to be web designers.

Feeling like you can't be fooled is a recipe for fooling yourself. Being convinced that faith is good and you can be punished for nonfaith is also a good meme for such. Watch Randi's videos... tons of people can be fooled so easily-- just because they trust... why would you imagine that you can't be one of those people?

And why is your god more likely than someone else's demons?

 

[Mobyseven]

Assigning probability=nil to each of those says nothing about "god".



What do those have to do with belief or disbelief in "god"?



You appear to have an active imagination.



People could be gentically engineering one as we speak.

Did you actually read anything in that post other than the list? Did you even read the sentence directly preceeding the list?

 

[articulett]

Did you actually read anything in that post other than the list? Did you even read the sentence directly preceeding the list?

BTW, Moby--

I've been reading and following you all along... and agree with your definition of what skepticism is. In fact, I agree with all your points.

To me, most skeptics would figure gods were in the same category as demons-- very unlikely... but very easy for people to be manipulated into believing in because they tap into primal feelings... they seem like they could be real... especially in a child's mind... and you can see how with inculcation those thoughts could remain past adulthood...especially prior to understanding other explanations and/or if you lived in a culture where it was beneficial to believe or express belief in such things.

 

[Lonewulf]

Children and lunatics are known to have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy as sane adults. Do you really think their testimony should be regarded as equal to that of sane adults?

No, but nor should they be disregarded entirely. If a child witnesses a murder, are you really willing to ignore that child's testimony?

You're essentially saying that children should be dismissed entirely because it's impossible for them to give any sort of testimony. That's ludicrous.

I regard professional psychics as entertainers (that's generally how they advertise their services) and those who pay them as easily amused.

Including psychics that claim that they can make breaks in police cases?

You're still re-defining all your terms until you come out on top. Welcome to woo central.

Okay. But you are arbitrarily dismissing testimony you don't like because you don't agree with it...

No, I am dismissing testimony using occam's razor (which is NOT arbitrary), and lack of objective evidence.

Saying that you see pink unicorns and saying that you witnessed a robbery are not equal. You think they are.

...whereas I am dismissing testimony because there is evidence that certain groups of people (children and lunatics) have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality.

And I say that adults also have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality. Otherwise, we wouldn't have woo, and they wouldn't make billions off of poor saps like you.

Do you really think that someone hires a Feng Shui designer for "entertainment"? Those people are ****ing expensive.

I would reject testimony from those same people for the same reason on entirely different subjects. Attorneys would try to avoid puting such folks on the witness stand because their testimony is not considered as reliable as that of a sane adult. Whereas you presumably would accept personal testimony from the same group (god believers) on other subjects.

It's not depending on the subject, it's depending on the quality of evidence. Testimony, especially what you "feel", is not quality testimony.

No reason to exclude such people from testifying in a court of law.

Second-hand testimony is, however. You're giving me second-hand testimony, and expecting me to defend against it.

However, I'm not excluding those people, but I am excluding their "visions". ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE VISIONS THAT DO NOT FOLLOW SUCH RELIGIONS.

While you are certainly entitled to your subjective opinion on the matter, hopefully you will understand it comes across as what you are accusing me of: an arbitraty rejection of testimony you don't agree with because you don't agree with it.

Then you would be wrong. But keep trying.

Not quite. I don't automatically reject the testimony of a sane adult on any of those subjects, I just have yet to meet a sane adult who gives testimony to the existance of the IPU or Santa Claus in anything other than an internet forum. And no, I don't take everything I read on the internet as true.

So you are dismissing testimony. 'Kay.

What 'vision' do you think I have claimed is true?

THEY claim it's true. Jeez, it's always about you, isn't it?

It's fine if you want to disregard such testimony. It certainly can't be proven to be true. All I'm saying is that I don't automatically reject such testimony as untrue. Neither do I assume it is true.

'kay.

Well, it's been an interresting discussion. Nice talking with you.

'kay.

No, I'm saying that the evidence for unicorns is much weaker than the evidence for god because I'm unaware of any sane adults that will provide personal testimony to the existance of a unicorn. Thus, while I have seen testimonial evidence for the existance of god, i have yet to see any such evidence for the existance of unicorns.

What about bigfoot? http://bigfootsightings.org/

Adults saw bigfoot. And they're actually adults and can be considered sane. Therefore, I should be able to claim that Bigfoot's existance is JUST AS LIKELY as his non-existance, right?

And if we went by your logic, we'd still be thinking that the sun revolved around the earth.