An atheist does not hold a belief in a particular God, but someone who fills this definition can just as well keep his mind open to new possibilities based on new data.

This flexibility is a bit less available to someone who is hard over on a pre-defined answer to the question.

I see two sides to this quandary. On one side, it is imperative to any thinking person that he question authority and examine data for himself, critically, and be willing to accept new data even if it seems to undermine his present models of the world.

On the other hand, it is a matter of integrity to be true to what you yourself know to be true. If you have had a genuine out-of-body experience, in your own view, you would do yourself a disservice to bury it as a mere fantasy because you were told to do so by an overweening skeptical authority figure.

Similarly if you have seen and walked with Jesus in some spiritual plane or other, or talk4ed to God in a compellingly convincing way, you have a sort of obligation not to deny that that occurred, while at the same time being willing to question any conclusions you drew as to the nature of the event.

This is a tricky balance. For one thing the mind is incredibly plastic and can generate completely persuasive 3D, fully sensible views of things that may not even be there in an objective sense. For another thing, sometimes, but not always, a subjective experience like that is more "truthy" than adhering only to the objective standards of comonly-held matter and space.

I think this issue actually reflects the most fundamental dichotomy of the human experience, having a spiritual nature embedded in a material playground and being whiplashed between the two.

My 2 cents' worth, anyway.

A