Is the Atheism/Theism belief/disbelief a false dichotomy? are there other options?

[Psychonaut]

I see

Well, the thing about personal experience is that it's unreliable. So we may feel certain that we have experienced something, but that doesn't mean we actually have. I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at.

Nevertheless, it is the only "first hand" information we have. Although it's still not really first hand, as it's gone through at least one filter before we can analyse it.

It's a very interesting topic!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I see the topic: 

There is an engineer, who is studying horse identification by machines at varying lengths. They want to see if they can figure out a way for machines to discern horses from a distance that doesn't rely on zooming (okay maybe this isn't the best example, but I'll run with it), they conclude, that movement of isolated areas, shape, and idiosyncratic behaviours in horses that are not observed in other quadrupeds are ideal for their machinery to discern horses from other animals.

Later, a scientist wants to conduct a running hypothesis on machine learning, and repeat the experiment with a higher level of control, so they go to the ranch where the experiment was conducted. 

It turns out, there was a secret experiment going on behind the engineer's back, and that was an experiment to see at what distance humans are deceived in to thinking mechanical horses are real horses. 

The engineers come back after the scientist had notified them of the error (and potential ethics violation), and realize that they had been duped. So, later, after reaching consensus with the scientists, they go on and repeat the experiment on real horses. 


The experience by the engineers, was definitely a real experience, but it was of a false nature (the machine being a horse). 
The experience of the inquiring scientist was a more accurate experience, as he had access to more information than the engineer.
The engineer's experience is a certain one, one that was as real as the scientist's experience.
I would liken the engineers experience as to the first kind of knowledge. The certain, but potentially useless information. 
Whereas the consensus reached by the scientists and the engineer would be likened to the second kind of knowledge, or, external knowledge derived by consensus. 

What concerns me ultimately, is that the scientists may be duped themselves. Furthermore, how can the scientists know that they aren't like the engineer, and how can they trust their own senses as accurate when obtaining information about "reality", and come to draw accurate conclusions.

 I guess that's where I'm going with all of it.