No reason justifies disbelief.

[Belacqua]

We confirm its reliability by the results it produces, if revelation could produce accurate and consistent results the you could determine it's reliability.

That's right.

And what I've been saying all along is that when we confirm its reliability we can only imagine using scientific-type methods for confirmation. 

This means that when we use the word "reliable" we have built into the word "science." This begs the question as to whether or not there can be non-scientific reliability. There can't because "reliable" and "scientific" have come to be used as tautological.

---

And what information have you gathered in a non scientific way ?

This is a thought experiment about confirming information gained in non-scientific ways. I offered as an example of non-scientific information revelation. (Then I had to explain over and over that I don't believe in revelation, that it's just a theoretical example.) 

The point is that if we did take in any information in a non-scientific way, is there some non-scientific way which we could use to say it's reliable. If not, then we are not open-minded to the possibility of non-scientific reliability. 

Or if you want to argue that there is no possibility of taking in and evaluating information in a non-scientific way, then you are saying that you're not open-minded to the possibility of non-scientific information and reliability.