I just cannot seem to disabuse him of his inconsistent position. He said:
I still think it's important that whatever rules we have for treating religious beliefs should be the same ones we use in other contexts. So the OTF has to be an example of how beliefs in general should be treated. LinkVictor, are you really saying we should have the same level of skepticism toward an ordinary claim like, "I saw a man riding a bike today," as we do with an extraordinary claim like, "I saw a man levitate in front of me"? This is what we're talking about with the OTF. It's about avoiding category type errors, by treating similar kinds of beliefs similarly and dissimilar kinds of beliefs dissimilarity. Your suggestion is a recipe for epistemological disaster. Empirical evidence is one thing. Faith is another. Science produces results. Faith leads to all kinds of mutually exclusive beliefs which admit of no method to adjudicate between them. All religions have the same faith-based foundation. When faith is a foundation anything can be believed. Shouldn't this lead us to be more skeptical of similar faith-based types of claims? If not, why not? I'd really like to know. And I'd also like to know why you think it's okay to have a double standard, one standard for other religious faiths and a different standard for one's own. Can you justify this? Yes or no? If so, do so now. Put up or, well, shut up.