What I did was handle your example in a way that more closely corresponded to the actual experiences under discussion (alluding to Saul on the road to Damascus, specifically).
The example under discussion was Jan Ardena's belief and superluminal saying it was based on hearsay and my saying that it could be based on experience and that he was making an assumption about JA's belief. In other words a non-believer assuming that a believer is basing his belief only on what other's have said.
And unlike many other experiences, which can be repeated and checked out and investigated in person, this kind is almost completely dependent on that hearsay. Saul did not have a revelation that he was epileptic, nor could he have had one.
Nor could you know this was the case.
As far as my example presuming the issue - indeed in my example someone pushed someone down - I was very aware of the fact that I had chosen an example YOU WOULD BELIEVE WAS POSSIBLE, EVEN LIKELY to have happened. I could have chosen a ghost, but that would have been a poor argument, no doubt. I was trying to use examples we could agree on and show how this other situation might be more like that than you realize. That you in fact believe things yourself, no doubt, that are based purely on your experience. I was not using my example as a proof of God, I was using it to show that your generalizations were not good ones. In other words in many mundane situations we ourselves believe things based on experience - that are to various degrees culturally affected. For all superluminal knows JA has had very compélling experiences. They make be correctly interpreted, they may be incorrectly interpreted. The interpretations may be overwhelmingly affected by the beliefs of others. They may not be. That was the context for me.
And as an aside: I could have chosen as an example real situations where scientists UNIVERSALLY have told people that their explanations were wrong and emotionally affected and only later after technological advances were the experiencers claims VERIFIED.
Nor, if I had been Saul knocked down on the road to Damascus, could I have had a revelation of my epilepsy.
And the fact is that was never the point, issue, or objection. The complaint has been that people, theists in particular and relevantly, expect me to take their beliefs seriously and treat them respectfully and allow for their significant possibility - the beliefs themselves, their content, not the person - due to the sincerity and strength with which they are held, regardless of circumstances otherwise. That is the argument from sincerity as I meet it, most commonly. You have suggested that atheists generally mistake this argument for another, a demand for belief. I don't, and neither do most other atheistic writers and people I meet.
This is your issue. I am not interested in your level of respect. I was interested in an assumption that was being made by superluminal, which I frequently see being made. It seemed like you were making it too. That theists expect you to believe because they believe. I am too lazy to go back and see but now we are focusing on issues of respect. I do not think you need to take theists' opinions seriously. Nor anyone else's unless you are doing something to them and they are protesting about it. So I am quite happy if you think they are drawing false conclusions or whatever else it is that goes into disrespect in your book.
I was interested in this issue of hearsay. Which still seems clearly an overgeneralization, probably from some psychological need on superluminal's part, perhaps yours also. Culturally determined needs no doubt.
