Originally Posted by punkworld

Another bad analogy. They are not all witnesses of the same event, therefore none of those events themselves is corroborated by the other testimonies. Combined with the fact that it is widely known that witnesses in, for example, criminal cases are EXTREMELY likely to screw up parts of what they have seen, add details (or entire new things), or misinterpret things they see, there is no reason to assume that these witnesses are any more credible. Now, if a large number of them had witnessed the same single event, and that event had been very clearly not open to any other interpretation (like the zeppelin that caused hundreds of UFO reports), it would be a different case.

If you really trust witnesses so much, you should do some research on philosophy of mind, specifically the research into how incredibly unreliable the human mind is in registering visual stimulation.



So you're comparing those thousands of intelligent, religious people with good educations who stand in a long tradition involving millions of people with a few hundred nutjobs who think they've been abducted by ET?

(no, I don't actually believe in religion - just pointing out that your attempted refutation of my argument doesn't work)

But yes, I do compare religious people who give testimony of things I consider untrue to UFO believers who give testimony of things I consider untrue.