Why be good?

[robvalue]

I clearly stated, what seems like hundreds years ago now in the other topic, that I instantly disbelieve my own wife as soon as she mentions anything supernatural. I trust her more than I trust anyone in the world, and I can ask her questions about her experience. I believe she believes, but I don't believe her beliefs are accurate. Given that perfectly reasonable (I would say) stance of me rejecting eye witness testimony from an incredibly reliable, trustworthy source who I really believe is not lying to me... why the living fuck would I take at face value even more ridiculous claims by people I know nothing about? You can add into that another ten people I trust who were also there and give the same account as my wife. Sorry, still don't believe it, for the same reasons. I have no evidence to examine, and I have extraordinary claims being made. The only logical thing to do is reject the claims until such time as evidence can be provided. Now, if my wife makes a mundane claim, I will almost certainly believe her unless I have a reason not to. That is the difference.

Of course, this was not addressed. I just got more of why they were reliable, which is already more than covered in my example. This continued ridiculous false equivocation between fairly mundane claims that can be investigated and unverifiable wild claims is doing us atheists a great service to show the level of dishonesty needed to even justify the beliefs to the believer themself.

Does Randy even believe what he is saying anymore? This is what happens when you have the conclusion pre-drawn, instead of starting at the beginning and working up. "My argument must be valid because the conclusion must be valid."