An open mind treats all idea the same, without bias for or against, this is not my metric, it is how the phrase is defined, and yes being open minded is an attempt to remove subjective bias, and thus an attempt to be more objective.
Believing our own entirely unevidenced and subjective experiences, over those of others, is of course the opposite, as it involves closed minded bias, believing them all inevitably leads to a violation of the law of non-contradiction.
You have used this false equivalence before, so firstly we cannot objectively verify that we all see red in the same way since the experience is subjective, but we can objectively demonstrate light exists and that light typically ranging between approximately 620 and 750 nanometers, is what we describe as red.
Unlike the bare subjective claims to have experienced, and therefore know, a deity exists.
No one has claimed this experience can be objectively validated, beyond the light we perceive typically ranging between approximately 620 and 750 nanometers. Though we know light exists, and this is objectively verifiable, unlike deities of course.
It is bare in the sense it cannot be objectively evidence beyond the subjective experience, the last part is a personal opinion, that I do not share, since I have explained I cannot base belief solely on unevidenced subjective claims, so it is not legitimate to me, nor would it be to the best methods we have for understanding reality, like science, and logic for example.
I can’t speak for what others believe, but I am dubious that is what she was saying, since the fact that a subjective unevidenced and ostensibly unfalsifiable belief can be either true, or untrue, does not in any way suggest parity between it and objectively verifiable facts. When we are ill we don’t listen to entirely subjective opinion, we listen to objectively verified scientific medical opinions, if we care that what we hear is reliably true.
You asked: “I mean, for example, my everyday waking life - to whom do I need to submit objective evidence? For the bare assertion that my senses provide me with evidence of existence itself?”
I answered in the part you quoted, I have emboldened it? If I ask you when you stopped beating your wife, you would I hope not accept the premise of the question, just as I didn’t here and explained why.
When you watch a conjurer and your senses see magic, do believe you are actually seeing magic? So the answer is the same as every other time this question was posed, our sense alone are unreliable and easily deceived. If what they sense is at odds with objective evidence / reality then I would trust the latter, not the former.
We have no way of knowing, we can only objectively verify that we are describing light with a wavelength of approximately 620 to 750 nanometers. We can also objectively verify that light is a form of energy (electromagnetic radiation) and that it exists.
The word red is not an entirely arbitrary description, but nothing is objectively red if it refers to our entirely subjective experience of it, rather it’s a descriptor we created to describe light with a wavelength of approximately 620 to 750 nanometers. The false equivalence is that we can objectively verify light exists outside of the human imagination, can you do this for a deity with anything beyond a bare appeal to the claim to have “experienced” one?
No we don’t, see above. A bare appeal to numbers is fallacious, and the number of people holding or expressing a belief tells us nothing (rationally) about the veracity of that belief.
Fair enough, for me it is not, as it must involve bias or irrationality. If I “experience” magic performed by a conjurer, then I must weigh what my senses are telling me, against the contradiction of objective evidence / reality.
Objective fasts are true regardless of what anyone believes or feels. Objective facts describe a reality independent of any mind, water freezes at 0°C, the shape of the earth etc etc…while subjective experiences are personal perceptions shaped by emotions, and biases.
