But what that means is only that they believed it was Satan's thumbprint, not of course that is was Satan's thumbprint. And, of course, I believe it was a germ, but, in fact, it was a germ.
'Believers' often accept their 'beliefs' as 'facts, while contrasting 'beliefs' of others are seen as 'delusions'.
What makes your understanding/belief any more 'fact' than theirs? They thought their 'beliefs' facts just as you seem to.
A 'fact' is equivalent to a 'belief'!
The germ theory of disease has been confirmed over and over again, and, in fact, germs have been seen under a microscope.
Only recently. Once observed, they are brought into existence.
That witches caused crop failure and disease was proven over and over again, also!
Of course there was a dark side of the Moon before the 60's and everyone knew about it.
You need to learn some science if you wish to have discussions of current thoughts on existence.
Food for thought;
Quantum Consciousness . Stuart Hameroff
An interesting discussion on the physics forum here; Is the Moon there when nobody looks at it?
A bit of understanding of the works of Bishop Berkeley
might also help;
Reality: The Grand Illusion
On the Quantum Psychodynamics
Some food for thought, to give you a clue where I'm comming from (if interested in understanding).
Why do you think that definition/observation is existence?
All the evidence points to this.
Everything (perceived) exists.
Existence is Context.
Everything exists in it's context.
Dualism/definition is context.
Perceiver and perceived are one.
We are the existence that we perceive, each moment.
Whose definition or observation?
Every possible Perspective, all together in sum total, define the observed existence/omniverse, at any moment.
Do you think that before you observed your parents they did not exist?
They were observed by other Perspectives.
Before they were perceived by some Perspective, they did not exist. Where are the parents of my great great 100 times great grandchildren? They do not Now! exist.
Perception by only one Perspective is sufficient to claim existence for the perceived. One perceiver of the FSM brings it into existence. There is nothing in existence that has not been Consciously perceived. No evidence available or possible without perception.
Please, read and understand some of Berkeley's writings before continuing this conversation. Not that I agree with all that he says, but the 'flavor' is certainly there, and has not been, yet, refuted.
Or do you think that your great-great-grandparents did not exist because no one you have known have observed them?
Can we, please, have a pleasant discussion without being insulting?
Or is this some attempt at 'moving the goalposts' or 'straw-man'?
What does me 'knowing' anyone personally have to do with anything?!
Not a thing!
Either way, I'll just let this pass as irrelevent (unless you wish to support it as relevent, for some reason...).