(September 17, 2017 at 5:21 pm)Mathilda Wrote: You can have the same story printed by many different newspapers yet if they all got the story from the same source who lied, then all those printed articles will be too. Counting the number of assertions is not evidence of the veracity of the story. You need to consider the source of each one and how interdependent they all are.

And how well they comport to known facts. Like, you know, how physics and biology work.

We're entering "Jesus' miracles must've happened because they didn't obey natural laws" territory. I trust I don't need to point out how fallacious that is.

(September 17, 2017 at 5:08 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification."

Millions of people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear.  Yet, no one actually believes he removed it from our plane of existence.  Multiple people can testify to some event, and still be wrong.  How can you not grasp this basic idea?

"Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification."

Steve is smart enough to know this statement is patently false.  He would never let that fly going the other way around.  He's desperately trying to breathe life into an argument that was more or less DOA.  Old Billy Lane Craig would be proud.

(September 17, 2017 at 6:15 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: "Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification."

Steve is smart enough to know this statement is patently false.  He would never let that fly going the other way around.  He's desperately trying to breathe life into an argument that was more or less DOA.  Old Billy Lane Craig would be proud. jealous.

(September 17, 2017 at 5:47 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(September 17, 2017 at 5:21 pm)Mathilda Wrote: You can have the same story printed by many different newspapers yet if they all got the story from the same source who lied, then all those printed articles will be too. Counting the number of assertions is not evidence of the veracity of the story. You need to consider the source of each one and how interdependent they all are.

And how well they comport to known facts.  Like, you know, how physics and biology work.

We're entering "Jesus' miracles must've happened because they didn't obey natural laws" territory.  I trust I don't need to point out how fallacious that is.

and then we see a denomination with evidence of a caliber the standard Christers can only dream about having in regards to their beliefs and we see they have problems with that evidence !!


So, if evidence is too good it becomes suspect ??

They do when they look at Mormon evidence and compare it to their own.

Turning their noses up at it is pretty damn funny, though.


 Wonder if it occurs to any of them their evidence might be as odious and putrid to an outside unbiased observer as they find Joseph Smith's witnessed and sworn to and attested evidence to be ??

The only difference between xtian bullshit and mormon bullshit is that we know the names of the liars who wrote the mormon bullshit.

(September 17, 2017 at 1:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Xtianity:

What the absolute fuck is wrong with people?

(September 16, 2017 at 11:11 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: L. Jesus' purported miracles defy all known laws of physics and our understanding of human biology.  Despite the possibility of the apostles actually believing these things (instead of, you know, trying to sell a religion), a belief in them occurring does not actually lend any veracity to that belief.

You can't argue a god into being.  Belief in something doesn't make that something exist by itself.  Even if several billion people believe in it.  There needs to be a way to test and verify, and no religion has that.

Ultimately, I wonder who you're trying to convince - us, or yourself?

You are question begging (miracles can't happen therefore there is no believable testimony of miracles). Not trying to convince anyone of anything. Atheist notoriously misunderstand the thing they feel so confident about--Christianity isn't true. I'm doing my part to correct that.

---

(September 16, 2017 at 11:00 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(September 16, 2017 at 10:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: Testimony is an assertion of fact. If you believe the person you accept the content of the testimony as fact. If you accept someone's testimony as fact, you have evidence to support a conclusion.

No, if you accept someones testimony as fact, then you've accepted someones testimony as fact.  I could have sworn we'd discussed this before.....everyone accepts their religions religious testimony...thats a job requirement for being in that religion.  That doesn't mean that, by sheer acceptance of the stories people tell, they all have evidence to support their conclusions.  

That somebody somewhere believes in something is not evidence of that something.  You don't believe that it is any more than I do - no matter what lies you feel compelled to float for christ, and you cannot possibly be applying this ridiculous assertion equally.

Quote:Notice none of these steps are considered proof.

It isn't evidence, either, regardless of whether or not you consider it as such.

Your definition of evidence is too restrictive (therefore incorrect). You need it to be completely synonymous with proof and it is not.  I have highlighted the relevant words:

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms:
   proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
   "they found evidence of his plotting"
   

---

(September 17, 2017 at 5:32 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 16, 2017 at 10:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: Testimony is an assertion of fact. If you believe the person you accept the content of the testimony as fact. If you accept someone's testimony as fact, you have evidence to support a conclusion.

lol, what?!  What the hell kind of logic is that?  You know that isn't remotely true, Steve.  So, if I accept the testimony of the folks who believe the Mandela effect is caused by parallel universes overlapping with ours, then I have evidence that supports that conclusion?  This is low even for you.  Is there a reason you skipped over responding to me, btw?  Just curious.

---

Once again, Steve has done a fine job of arguing himself over to the opposing position, lol.

Do you have reasons to believe these people? If you do, then you have evidence. Not proof, evidence. You have a real hangup on defining evidence don't you. Your confidence in your definition is misplaced. I will look back and see what I missed from you.

(September 16, 2017 at 3:41 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 16, 2017 at 8:03 am)Mathilda Wrote: Nope. That's why asset bubbles are a feature of the economic system. The majority of people can clearly be wrong about very important things.

All it tells us is that there are a lot of people who believe the same thing, not whether they imagined it or not.

That's a horrible comparison. Aggregated population  trends and attitudes compared to "I'm convinced this is what happened"?

Why is it a horrible comparison?