You are a judge, presiding over a murder trial. You are provided with a single witness who directly incriminates the defendant and that he has pictures of the defendant in the process of inserting the knife into his wife’s chest. Guilt is undeniable here. Empirical data has been provided that has cast doubt from any jury’s mind.
You are a judge, presiding over a murder trial. You are provided with ten witnesses who all stake their reputation and lives on the line, insisting that they believe that the defendant not only murdered his wife, but that they saw it happen in their dreams. This is the only evidence you are given, but does the quantity matter in this situation? It shouldn’t.
The second case is presented in order to show how I see religion’s testimony. Yesterday I participated in a “debate” with a theist trying to convince me that he had proof of god’s existence and that it was undeniable. “A friend of mine was an atheist and he converted to Christianity,” he said repeatedly. Its this type of irreducibly complex argument that makes it impossible to discuss leaving religion with any of these blind, teary eyed believers.