You've misunderstood my point. I'm saying that both claims are invalid from a hard skeptical point of view.
If someone comes to the conclusion that demons are merely imaginary based entirely on (1) evidence that some people have imagined demons, (2) people pass on unproven ideas through culture, and (3) no current evidence of invisible consciousness, they are on pretty weak ground from a skeptical point of view.
Wrong. Very strong reasons. See occam. Never has the supernatural been an explanation for anything. It's always been a filler until humans figure out the actual facts.
(1) This is only evidence that demons can be imaginary, not that they actually necessarily always are. In the same way that just because some people have imaginary friends, doesn't mean that all friends are imaginary.
Bad analogy. Real friends get their consciousness from their brains; they are material entities-- which are hooked up to sensory organs. If your friend dies, they are not still your friend. Gods tend not to be material-- that makes them very likely imaginary per occam.
(2) This is pretty much the same reason that we aren't still living in caves. Information that works for people gets passed on. Some of it may not be true. People sometimes believe things they have learned which might not be true. This is the same kind of evidence as point 1.
Fallacious reasoning again. Good and bad information gets passed on... just like AIDS gets passed on. Religion gets passed on like a chain letter-- believe without evidence and you are rewarded forever... but if you doubt or bite from the tree of knowledge you and all your descendants can be punished. Oh, and god likes it if you spawn a lot and get more believers for him. People believe the things they are told by the people they trust. People learn not question their god beliefs because "questioning god is arrogant". And people are told that life is hell without god--so they keep him around--because they fear the consequences of letting go.
(3) This isn't evidence. This, by definition, is simply no evidence at all. It gives us no useful information either way. There are numerous things that we used to have no evidence for, but now know that they exist, and we have no reason to believe that we are now at the pinnacle of discovery and know all there is to know.
Correct. But there is no reason to think that gurus, scriptures, faith, or feelings will ever teach us anything true or verifiable. They never have. The thing about science and reality is that the evidence does accumulate--it's useful and a little begets a lot more... but, despite eons of belief, there is no evidence for god and lots of evidence that he's an illusion. THAT is evidence... just like Randi being able to perform the same feats as Uri Geller and no one winning the MDC is evidence that these things ARE woo. Like gods and demons and thetans.
The direct conclusion from this evidence and the hard skeptical approach can therefore only conclude that "we don't know, but we know it's possible". Since we didn't have an objective estimate of how probable it was that demons were just imaginary without the evidence, we have no way to say if this evidence changes the objective probability of the claim.
Although you want that to be true... skeptics believe things based on evidence--the most likely explanation for the observed facts. They know you cannot disprove god anymore than you can disprove Zeus... but they also know the rules of evidence and logic tend to give the best understanding of reality... that's how science works... that's the way we understand stuff like the shape of our earth-- it's not stuff you have to believe to understand -- it's stuff that's true for everybody whether they believe or not. That's why their opinions tend to converge on atheism and the models of science--the denial of the supernatural. There is no loss in denying the supernatural. The evidence can always change a skeptics mind--but until then, the best approach is always not to believe anything about any invisible forms of consciousness until or unless the belief is substantiate. It's prudent to treat all such claims as imaginary. We never would have learned anything if we tried to find it out about reality through faith. Positing the supernatural as an explanation is a childish dead end which blunts further discovery.
Of course, this is an over-simplified model and in reality, individually, someone comes to such a conclusion based on a whole lifetime of learning, understanding, shaping perceptions, etc. Without knowing every bit of related knowledge that person may have, everything they've seen and how they understand the world, and without objectively knowing exactly what their thought processes have been in reaching this conclusion, in my opinion, it's not really possible to make any kind of objective conclusion as to whether their conclusion has been reached rationally or not.
My opinion is that you are reasoning fallaciously as religious memes have taught you to do. I don't think most people really know why they believe what they do. But I also know that the smartest conclusion is that all gods are figments of the imagination. To posit that one or another invisible entity might be real--posits a very different world... and not one anyone could know about-- If I can't know if there is a god-- no one CAN. They can only believe.
The same for the claim that demons are real. As we don't have proof that they don't exist, we have to accept that there's a possibility that they do. So we're in the same position from the hard skeptic point of view, that "we don't know, but it's possible".
Yes, but lets face it-- the smart people treat them as imaginary--figments of the imagination...
If someone claims experiences with demons, we are in no position to judge by anything but our imagination what that person may or may not have experienced. Even though we know some people fool themselves, it may be the case that even the most cynical of skeptics might have to conclude almost certainty of the existence of demons when directly faced with such things. Without knowing the full "how"s and "why"s of someone's belief, it's pretty hard to judge the rationality behind it.
Wrong. I think we're absolutely on solid ground to assume that there are no demons no matter how many people believe or think they are possessed. We'd never have discovered schizophrenia if we thought mental aberrations were demon possession. Belief in the supernatural is always a false conclusion for understanding facts. The supernatural is never the correct explanation.
While I agree that a hard/true/absolute skeptic would be an implicit atheist (using the broad definition of the word), that person would hold no firm opinions on anything unless it had been shown to be objectively proven, and I am highly doubtful that such a person actually exists. Which leaves us in a position of defining "a skeptic" in such a way that either nobody is a skeptic or that skeptics may hold objectively unproven beliefs and opinions.
Wrong--skeptics tend to hold increasingly firm on beliefs as the evidence (or lack of it) accumulates over time-- and they tend to agree on the one reality that is the same for everyone. And opinions are not facts. Beliefs about facts that defy all known facts is illogical. A skeptic that posits that the supernatural is real in not being a skeptic in regards to that claim.
A definition is a person who utilizes skepticism. Per your definition of the world all believers of anything could be called skeptics. Your definition of skeptic means anyone who believes they are. That is not my definition. Moreover-- opinions are not beliefs. Opinions are not about the reality that is the same for everyone--they are subjective. Everyone has "unproven" opinions... but not everyone is a skeptic. Not everyone allows the supernatural as an explanation--those who do--are not being skeptical in regards to that claim. Anyone holding a believe that someone can exist without being detectable in any measurable way is invoking faith to reach that conclusion. It can never be disproven, but that doesn't make the belief skeptical or logical. ("God's name is Sandy--you can't prove me wrong."-- that's how the theists are arguing...and that's why it's maddening trying to have a discussion with believers or supporters of woo belief.)
