In a recent discussion, I casually tossed off a reference to the God Helmet in reference to one of the ways human beings can be deceived about their experiences. I said something like "you can stick magnets on people's heads and make them see God." I was remembering when I saw it being covered on Nova or some other science show.
As one can see from reading the Wikipedia page on it, let alone the actual scientific studies, the god helmet effect is not conclusively proved as of yet, and there are some problems in replicating the initial results. It needs a lot more study before one can draw conclusions based on it.
Now, the God Helmet isn't the only example I used, I also mentioned various forms of chemicals by which I meant DMT psychoactive drugs that seem to have better supported evidence about the kinds of effects they can produce, but the fact remains that I was not using the best reasoning I could. This is an obvious limitation of debate, at least over short term timescales. It's also an example of how even proponents of a standard can fail to live up to them.
What this says to me is that I need to remember to strive to be more humble when presenting my own claims, especially when criticizing others about theirs. It doesn't make me less of an atheist or a skeptic, it's just a reminder of how sometimes I can be a dick about it.