Telling fact from fiction

[RoadRunner79]

So, basically anything which I don't assume as true, and they cannot or will not demonstrate to me personally is likely fiction?  Would you say this is accurate of what you are proclaiming?

Nobody said "assume" except you.  It's pretty simple-- if something doesn't accord with what I know to be true, and I cannot verify it to be true, I will believe it to be untrue.  

There at least has to be the sense that I COULD verify something, even though I haven't yet.

In the case of parrot-owning Mr. Smith, I could theoretically just go to his house and knock on his door.  Unless I have reason to believe someone is making him up, however, I probably won't bother.  In the case of water-walking Mr. Smith, who lived 2000 years ago, I cannot go back in time and verify that he really walked on water-- there's no "could" anymore.  I will need to see evidence that a person can walk on water.  Without this, then I have two pieces of evidence: 1) I've never seen anyone walk on water; 2) people make shit up all the time, and will conclude that water-walking Mr. Smith most likely didn't walk on water, or didn't exist at all.

When someone says, "Mr. Smith was real, believe me, you have to have faith that Mr. Smith really existed and walked on water," then that's fine-- so long as the water-walking-Smith believe is willing to accept the fact that there is a magical fairy masturbating on my desk right now on faith.

Yes, so you need to see something first hand at least once in order to be able to believe that it is possible.   I don't see where a potential to go see it, makes a difference in if it is fiction or not.   But anyways, I now feel justified, in not just being skeptical of evolution, Sweden, and your post, but in calling them fiction.