In the real world, there just aren't that many SREoE's with high priors on G1 before being exposed to E1.
First of all, note that you effectively just said that nearly all religious people are irrational. I won't hold it against you, just realize that that's the position you're expressing.
If I have strong reasons (high prior probability) of thinking that a coin has heads on both sides, I'm making a mistake by becoming more confident after I flip the coin and it comes up tails.
Obviously. If there is clear evidence against your beliefs, you should decrease your confidence in your beliefs. But the problem is that this situation is not so simple as heads and tails.
What I'm trying to say is that two SREoEs can properly examine E1 and come up with different conclusions. I'm sorry if I agreed too fully to Dave's first set of propositions—the devil's in the details, as we irrational people who believe in a Devil say sometimes.
So on your account, if I've understood it, I have sufficient evidence to justify a high confidence in a conscious higher Power consistent with the accounts of all believers in Abrahamic religions, though not necessarily identical to that described in any of those accounts, and the fact that I lack such confidence is merely because I haven't properly evaluated the evidence available to me. Yes?
The key is "if I haven't properly evaluated the evidence." I took "properly" to mean "in a certain way," while Dave intended it as "in the one correct way." When this became clear, I tried to clarify my position.
I'm going to reiterate it again, because you don't seem to be getting it: I believe that it's possible for two equally R Es oE to evaluate the same evidence and come up with different conclusions. Thus exposure to E1 does not necessarily entail any confidence-shifting at all, even in a SREoE.
First of all, note that you effectively just said that nearly all religious people are irrational. I won't hold it against you, just realize that that's the position you're expressing.
I'll pop in here and note that the general point of view here is that everyone is irrational, and even the best of us frequently err. That's why we tend to use the term "aspiring rationalist," since nobody has reached the point of being able to claim to be an ideal rationalist.
The highest standard we can realistically hold people to is to make a genuine effort to be rational, to the best of their abilities, using the information available to them.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.