Would that apply to someone with a particularly high prior on the werewolf question? So, you would agree that anyone who believes that the state of evidence on "the God question" is more positive than the state of evidence on the "werewolf question" should consider labeling themselves an agnostic? theist?
And, I presume that you believe that one's current belief in the state of evidence would be controlled by 1) verifiable general evidence, 2) experience, and 3) priors on both questions?
Then we're in agreement: you should (apparently) call yourself an atheist, and I should call myself a Christian, as we differ on #2 and #3. (not that theism = Christian, but that goes back to #2).
I became a Christian because I was a Bayesian first. I know there are others like me. I saw and experienced evidence that caused me to positively update my belief.
Now if you don't like that argument, then please tell me how can anyone become an atheist via Bayesian updating? Can your posterior really go to a point mass at zero (belief in God)? If so, please tell me what prior you were using. If not, please tell me how you define atheism.
@ Paul Murray
There is no straw man. You've presumed that I meant that Christian = "Pr(god)=1". That was never my claim. It had seemed that atheist was being used as Atheist="Pr(god)=0", but E. clarified his position. I think that agnostic (in the literal sense) is always a better term than atheist, but that's just semantics.
The real issue (to me) is what Christians (or other "people of faith") think of the atheistic position, and vice versa. Christians are often derided here as uneducated or un-Bayesian.
My point is not to convince you to believe, but to ask whether you think that a rational Bayesian can ever become a Christian (or person of other faith), given that we have different life experiences and different priors? Can it be so? And if so, then why the derision? Is that not an irrational bias?
I'll leave it up to God to care about space-time location of your dinner.