(August 23, 2017 at 2:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: I agree. Words are not capable of conveying truth value simply because they were asserted. So the witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record plus the context of the event provide tangible and necessary inputs in determining the weight of testimonial evidence toward a conclusion. It is the inseparable package of these things together that form "evidence".

Gee, that's alot of shit -outside of the testimony-...it's almost as if you don't think testimony is evidence at all........it's almost as if the value of testimony is determined by corroborating evidence.

So, tell me, what do you know about "Paul"'s

Quote:character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record

Or, perhaps....magic book's

Quote: context of the event provide tangible and necessary inputs in determining the weight of testimonial evidence toward a conclusion.

?

Uh-huh. I enjoy watching this collapse like flan in a cupboard. So, not only does testimony not meet the description you previously gave of evidence...in order to even asses it as...what(?)...you need all of this other stuff?

(August 23, 2017 at 10:24 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 23, 2017 at 8:05 am)bennyboy Wrote: Maybe I DO have a point, and I'm not being a dick for no reason.  I'm being a dick because it's the most concise way to make obvious what should already BE obvious.

You could just as easily have said that Judas was the real hero or something like that. Either way it's not like I've never been a complete ass so I cannot fault you too much for using hyperbole now and then. You're one of my favorite members and I hate to see you start treating believers with contempt like so many do. Roadrunner has been taking the high road on this one.

(bold mine)
High horse, you mean. RR keeps insisting that he's just interested in the idea of testimonial in general, and that he is definitely NOT talking about religious ideas. However, based on how the thread has unfolded, I find this so highly implausible that I've openly declared I that I believe him to be lying.

Why do we not have several examples of testimony to examine and consider? Anyone with a general interest in jurisprudence would produce some typical examples: identifying people in a lineup, for example, or dependence on potentially unreliable "expert" witnesses; in a matter of a minute, I could probably produce a list of 10 or 20 examples worth discussion. I've just scrolled through 20 pages of this thread, and found a conspicuous absence of testimonial cases whose evidentiary value we are to consider.

It's like I made a thread about the value of cars, but carefully refrained from ever mentioning any actual cars. Why would I do that?

(August 23, 2017 at 2:11 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 23, 2017 at 2:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: I agree. Words are not capable of conveying truth value simply because they were asserted. So the witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record plus the context of the event provide tangible and necessary inputs in determining the weight of testimonial evidence toward a conclusion. It is the inseparable package of these things together that form "evidence".

And the fact (read: well-supported by a robust body of evidence, including scientific evidence) is that a person can have upstanding character, sharp cognitive abilities, a plethora of knowledge and experience in the subject, and a phenomenal track record, and yet...still be wrong about what they are recalling.

Such is the irrefutable unreliability of witness testimony, no matter how badly you guys want to muddle and over-complicate the matter.

Not to mention some can be 2 of these things but not the third and there are other factors not in the listed 3

(August 23, 2017 at 7:37 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 23, 2017 at 12:52 am)bennyboy Wrote: You still haven't commented on my testimonial that Jesus likes to....

Why do you have to be like that? I know that some people say "respect the believer but not the belief". I don't see how lude remarks like this are anything but directed towards the believers themselves.

Oh, Neo...quit being such a sensitive little...snowflake.  😜

(August 22, 2017 at 3:17 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(August 22, 2017 at 3:05 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Too bad for you that testimony is the weakest of evidences and hearsay is the weakest form of testimony.

Most of the time you don't get physical evidence--especially for events. So, the best evidence possible is often going to be testimonial evidence.

No, I'd say that events which really happen typically leave behind some kind of physical evidence of themselves. Much of our written history, for instance, has been either supported or refuted by archaeological evidence. Eye witness accounts can be supported or refuted by forensic evidence. Stopping at testimony is not a path to truth.

Quote:ONE OF THE MOST fascinating features of early Christianity
is that so many different Christian teachers and Christian groups
were saying so many contrary things. It is not just that they said
different things. They often said just the opposite things. There is
only one God. No, there are many gods. The material world is the
good creation of a good God. No, it comes from a cosmic disaster
in the divine realm. Jesus came in the flesh. No, he was totally removed
from the flesh. Eternal life comes through the redemption
of the flesh. No, it comes through escaping the flesh. Paul taught
these things. No, Paul taught those other things. Paul was the
true apostle. No, Paul misunderstood the message of Jesus. Peter
and Paul agreed on every theological point. No, they were completely
at odds with one another. Peter taught that Christians
were not to follow the Jewish law. No, he taught that the Jewish
law continued to be in force. And on and on and on, world
without end.

Not only did those on every side in all of these debates think
that they were right and that their opponents were wrong; they
also maintained in all sincerity and honesty that their views were
the ones taught by Jesus and his apostles. What is more, they all,
apparently, produced books to prove it, books that claimed to be
written by apostles and supported their own points of view. What
is perhaps most interesting of all, the vast majority of these
apostolic books were in fact forged. Christians intent on establishing
what was right to believe did so by telling lies, in an attempt
to deceive their readers into agreeing that they were the
ones who spoke the truth.

Bart Ehrman  p. 242  Forged

Stuff like this will make the religitards' heads explode.  Sucks to be them.

Quote:And the fact (read: well-supported by a robust body of evidence, including scientific evidence) is that a person can have upstanding character, sharp cognitive abilities, a plethora of knowledge and experience in the subject, and a phenomenal track record, and yet...still be wrong about what they are recalling.

Such is the irrefutable unreliability of witness testimony, no matter how badly you guys want to muddle and over-complicate the matter.

And not just wrong occasionally wrong constantly .

Sometimes, fatally wrong.

https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/...ification/

Quote:Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide.

Of course, there is a lot of police and prosecutorial misconduct involved, too.  Like the WLB, those motherfuckers are only concerned about "winning."

(August 23, 2017 at 2:14 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 23, 2017 at 10:24 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You could just as easily have said that Judas was the real hero or something like that. Either way it's not like I've never been a complete ass so I cannot fault you too much for using hyperbole now and then. You're one of my favorite members and I hate to see you start treating believers with contempt like so many do. Roadrunner has been taking the high road on this one.

(bold mine)
High horse, you mean.  RR keeps insisting that he's just interested in the idea of testimonial in general, and that he is definitely NOT talking about religious ideas.  However, based on how the thread has unfolded, I find this so highly implausible that I've openly declared I that I believe him to be lying.  

Why do we not have several examples of testimony to examine and consider?  Anyone with a general interest in jurisprudence would produce some typical examples: identifying people in a lineup, for example, or dependence on potentially unreliable "expert" witnesses; in a matter of a minute, I could probably produce a list of 10 or 20 examples worth discussion.  I've just scrolled through 20 pages of this thread, and found a conspicuous absence of testimonial cases whose evidentiary value we are to consider.  

It's like I made a thread about the value of cars, but carefully refrained from ever mentioning any actual cars.  Why would I do that?

And even going beyond this thread, the one he started on testimony just before this current one was a direct piggy back off of Steve's thread about extraordinary claims and specifically, NT claims; a thread which RR was actively participating in when he split off to start his own.  Hmm...

(August 23, 2017 at 1:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. Actions witnessed: someone running, weaving in and out of traffic, aimed his gun at the clerk.
2. Conditions witnessed through the five senses like at 8am I was sleeping, smelling gasoline, hearing an argument in the next apartment, the light was off. 
3. Interactions like the man shoved me out of the way, the stranger gave me a dollar for a coffee, I gave my bus seat to the old lady.
4. Conversations like Fred said he would shoot my dog if it shit on his lawn again or that Mary said she is having a bad day. 

Tell me, a week following any of these events, what physical evidence would be readily available to examine if the event really happened?  A month? A year? There are billions of such things every minute of every day happening in the world. 

The rest of your post does not apply since you missed the point and are veering off topic.

What I said applies to all claims of any sort of occurance of any kind, regardless of whether the claim is in the form of testimony or direct, physical evidence, moron.

The fact that there you can't gather the evidence because you are unwilling to, or because you are too stupid too, or because it is beyond your power to, does not entitle you to pretend that evidence is therefore unnecessary, and your pet claim be given leniency, moron.