Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

I am willing to compromise.  I can believe that you all are either lying, crazy or delusional, until you provide empirical evidence to me and generally pretend to be hyper-skeptical.  Should make the next thread about a police officer involved shooting fairly interesting (although I may gain some haters).  I'll start by rejecting your claim about testimony and the way reality really works.

I know you've had Bayesian logic explained to you before, RR. Everything involved in a reported police shooting is incomparably more plausible than a claim of the supernatural, paranormal, or cryptids because such an incident is entirely composed of things that we KNOW exist and KNOW can happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be reasonably skeptical, we should be reasonably skeptical of everything, especially in a world where lots of people just make stuff up to stir the pot...but Bayesian logic determines what level of skepticism is reasonable, and you use it for everything else but your religion.

I am skeptical about your claim of Bayesian logic.  It may be able to tell you what you are more likely to see today, or given no other information (or conflicting accounts), what someone else was more likely to have seen.  However it doesn't follow, that because something is more common, that it more likely occurred vs the less common option, especially when there is evidence for the latter.  

Also, please support you claim, that I use it for everything else but my religion.