Thats exactly my point. None of you were there to experience it yet there are particular individuals not only expressing certainty that I [the person who experienced the events first hand] am not a credible witness but also that they know better concerning what happened than I do.
Certainly.
That is not skeptical doubt; that is bald presumption.
Not at all. It's psychology and neurology.
Ultimately,
no-one is a credible witness. Our brains are not that reliable. Memory is plastic. Memory can change in the simple act of recall. We merge memories with later thoughts and events and then come to recall the modified memory as the original. That's
confabulation.
This is established scientific fact, which you have completely ignored no matter how many times it's been pointed out to you.
No one is attacking you in any way. We are pointing out that, like the rest of us, you are human, and need to take into account that your own perceptions and memories are unreliable.
Like I said, I left out particular details of what was discussed specifically because it was of a personal nature. I also have no desire or need to convince anyone to uncritically accept my account; there have been plenty of posters expressing reasonable doubt concerning my story and I've no objection to them, their opinions, or conduct. What I AM objecting to is the certainty being expressed by others that the account I'm giving is inaccurate and the presumption that certain third parties know what really happened better than I.
Essentially, the account is
guaranteed to be inaccurate. Doesn't matter who is giving the account. Human memory is not reliable, and subjective experience is particularly problematic.
The reason for these presumptions are obvious: the account, as given, appears to violate certain individuals' preconceptions about reality and, upon the basis of these beliefs, they are vehemently discounting it.
No, this is entirely untrue. Your
interpretation of the account violates the entirety of scientific knowledge, and as presented to us is based on no more than an assertion.
As I said, your story does not stand alone; there are plenty of other stories we can compare it to. And in not a single case, ever, in all of history, has there been verifiable information that would support your interpretation.
This is more reminiscent of the behavior of YECs, than of skeptics.
Not remotely.
I also find it very telling that when I questioned PixyMisa about his own auditory hallucinations and expressed similar doubt about the veracity of the account he'd give he interpreted that as an "ad hom".
Again, this is entirely untrue.
I said, in relation to this:
I can recall my own experiences, but I fully expect my recollections to be inexact.
Then you later said:
Oh, and I'm still curious about the content of those hallucinations, PixyMisa. While your memory may be shoddy and your integrity seriously questionable, I'd still like to hear you out
Which is clearly an ad hominem attack.
Then there were a bunch of posters rushing in to his defense to protect him the the cruel evil Aku.
You mean, addressing the faults in your argument?
I saw no one rushing to the defense of posters like Limbo as they were facing similar replies.
Uh, people were addressing the faults in his argument too.
Anyone observing the occurrences here without bias can see that there is a clear and blatant double standard being applied.
Certainly. So you should stop doing that.
