How come ... to attack?
~~~ Philosophy, 'critical thought' is diametrically opposite to religion, 'belief'. The greater the one, the less the other (on any particular topic), and vice versa!
To demand that the other, equally valid means of Knowing, provide 'evidence' to justify themselves to your satisfaction is ignorance. And ignorance by the one so challenged that was baited into the unfair 'contest' and accepting the challenge (naively).
A man can point to a rock and claim 'evidence' of God! That is his Perspective!
His evidence is sufficient in that he perceives it as evidence.
You can look at the rock and claim it as not evidence for you.
'Evidence' can be made to fit neatly with your prejudices, your 'needs'.
Well, once 'belief', with it's unique 'evidentiary calculator' is tricked onto the philosophy field, operating by THEIR calculator, they are doomed to failure by the stack of the deck against them!
It would be equally absurd in the vice versa!
So, the 'believers', who are unprepared for philosophical discourse, are relegated to symptomatic and blustering fallacies, ad-hom being one of the first (signs that a 'belief' is involved), progressing through 'moving the goal-posts' and finally with their 'fleeing' the field, or killing you.
'Beliefs' are quite viral in nature; they must survine and propagate.
Ultimately, the strongest 'beliefs' are completely unavailable to 'critical examination' (and vice versa)... See; zealotry, fundamentalism, fanaticism...
"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"
When a skeptic asks a believer to provide evidence...
~~~ Logic is one 'way of knowing, of perceiving.
Intuition (and belief) is another. Rather than a linear sequential stream of thought leading to some 'theory', intuition is the perception of the theory, already complete, holistically, at once.
Not better, not worse, just a different way of knowing the One Reality that we all perceive.
Another more philosophically sound scenario is if they both attempted to understand the other's Perspective, the other's 'knowledge'; to understand the context where they are 'correct', and incorporate it into your own understanding.
The new, critically updated, all inclusive, final definition of 'Knowledge';
"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived'!"
All inclusive!
Whether what is perceived is a 'logic thought' or a 'belief' thought, they both count for Knowledge!
Every Perspective is unique every moment!
The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
For example, an atheist will argue ..., prove it.
~~~ That is a fallacy right there!
First, 'God' is not a necessary component of psychic phenomena, nor is a 'belief' in God. That one might be an atheist does not necessarily preclude him from the experience of all sorts of phenomena!
History is replete with evidence. If the skeptic were able, he would 'disprove', which he cannot, so, second best, trick those who live in that reality, into a rigged battle. Insincere!
And no different than if the shoe were on the other foot.
The whole western philosophical toxin of 'true' vs 'false' has become obsolete!
The psychic instead will use ad hominem arguments ...
~~~ That is a perfect example of an ignorant person trying to play by another's subjective rules!
And when you say that "The psychic instead will use ad hominem arguments", to which psychic do you refer? You cannot possible be speaking for all as one, are you?
There are quantum mechanical explanations in support of the mystical explanations of all 'psychic phenomena'!
But isn't that the entire point of skepticism?
~~~ It turns out, ultimately, if you follow the path to the 'end', that both believing everything' and being skeptical of, and 'critically examining' everything leads into the same 'light'! The same 'place'.
It is necessary and inevitable that skeptics will be skeptical.
A 'believer' has no option but to 'believe'.
The 'skeptic' BELIEVES in the power of 'skepticism', no? And that is different from the religionist 'believing' in God??
I've heard the True Believers of logic and rationality, and when their precious 'logic and rationality' are put to the 'critical examination', they freak JUST THE SAME, with the same symptoms (ad-hom, etc...), as the Goddites.