Witness Evidence

[robvalue]

This topic does bring up an interesting point. Quite often, the difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic is the ability to assess the reliability of one's own memories and experiences.

A sceptic acknowledges their brain can make mistakes. Their brain can be fooled. Memories can degrade, or even be implanted. The sceptic looks to validate any extremely unusual memories, or to consider them suspect.

A non-sceptic says, "I know what I saw. It was [extraordinary event]." Optionally, "My mate saw it too." (The mate is similarly infallible and an expert in categorizing unknown phenomena.)

PS: I'm not just drawing a divide between sceptic atheists and theists here. There are plenty of non-sceptic atheists who use similarly bad methods to determine what is likely to be true.