Evidence: The Gathering

[abaris]

Since you keep harping on legal standards of proof, let's step back and consider standards of proof in the law and elsewhere.

Don't let yourself be drawn into his "legal" standards bullshit. We were over this before he was sent on his vaccation. Legal standards ain't worth shit when it comes to history. There's a very good reason why both disciplines are taught at different faculties. Both have a very different methodology and legal standards vary from country to country. Historical standards don't. They're the same all over the world. And what he considers evidence doesn't even rise up to the very basics of what is accepted by history.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Evidence is anything which might make the elements to be proven more or less likely.  Anything that doesn't do one or the other, isn't evidence at all.   If it provides background information, it might be let in.  If it engages the emotions in a prejudicial way, it may be excluded. 

I agree with every word you say. The standards of proof, as well as what constitutes valid evidence, is everything in a trial. My own conviction was directly the result of a judge being lax with both concepts, and why it was eventually overturned. He changed the standard of proof by eliminating one of the elements that had to be proved by the prosecution (juries don't get to read the actual law being enforced, just the "instructions" from the judge, who interprets it for them and states what exactly must be proved by the plaintiff/state, element by element), and he admitted both emotionally-biased background information (they attacked my atheism blog, including its title, in front of a jury that contained a priest, a youth pastor, and two preachers' wives, by quoting a section where I spoke about drugs, completely out of context, and the only way to put it back into context would have been to read a blog entry in which I attacked several members of the church for lying to their congregations about addiction and the Drug War) as well as evidence that was demonstrably fabricated (blocking us from entering evidence that could prove it so).

It matters, in a discussion/debate, what the standards of proof are, what constitutes legitimate evidence, and whether both sides are held to the standards. We here get frustrated because Christians come here as the Plaintiffs and then refuse to honor any of these standards. They shift the burden, they offer "proofs" that are really just bald assertions without basis, unreliable testimony that cannot be cross-examined (or which they will not really allow cross examination of with honest answers), hearsay evidence, and demonstrably false strawmen of both science and the beliefs of atheism ... and then, even after we have clearly shown that the ideas asserted as evidence were not qualified evidence, were totally bogus from the start, or unfounded assertion with no basis in fact, they just press on as if nothing happened!

To compare the arguments you have been making, Randy, to anything that happens in a courtroom is to do a disservice to the entire concept of Due Process of Law, and I say this as a person who has watched what happens when it goes awry.

---

Since you keep harping on legal standards of proof, let's step back and consider standards of proof in the law and elsewhere.

Don't let yourself be drawn into his "legal" standards bullshit. We were over this before he was sent on his vaccation. Legal standards ain't worth shit when it comes to history. There's a very good reason why both disciplines are taught at different faculties. Both have a very different methodology and legal standards vary from country to country. Historical standards don't. They're the same all over the world. And what he considers evidence doesn't even rise up to the very basics of what is accepted by history.

This is a valid point. However, since they are so apt to engage in this kind of sophistry (by playing on the presumption of most people about how the system works, when the reality is much more complex), I am willing to engage them on those terms. The courtroom standards are sadly lax, even under the best of circumstances... and even so, their "evidence" falls horrifyingly short.

[abaris]

This is a valid point. However, since they are so apt to engage in this kind of sophistry (by playing on the presumption of most people about how the system works, when the reality is much more complex), I am willing to engage them on those terms. The courtroom standards are sadly lax, even under the best of circumstances... and even so, their "evidence" falls horrifyingly short.

No, history is the standard to engage his claims. History is an international system and what he claims has no base in that discipline. He's demonstrated again and again that he hasn't got any clue when it comes to history. For references look up some of my old posts when I still considered it a valid endeavor to engage him on that.

He's just going back to his old courtroom shtick although I already owned him on that. It's not worth the effort to engage him on anything. That guy is just a sleazy phony.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

No, history is the standard to engage his claims. History is an international system and what he claims has no base in that discipline. He's demonstrated again and again that he hasn't got any clue when it comes to history. For references look up some of my old posts when I still considered it a valid endeavor to engage him on that.

He's just going back to his old courtroom shtick although I already owned him on that. It's not worth the effort to engage him on anything. That guy is just a sleazy phony.

Roger that.

[Jenny A]

Since you keep harping on legal standards of proof, let's step back and consider standards of proof in the law and elsewhere.

Don't let yourself be drawn into his "legal" standards bullshit. We were over this before he was sent on his vaccation. Legal standards ain't worth shit when it comes to history. There's a very good reason why both disciplines are taught at different faculties. Both have a very different methodology and legal standards vary from country to country. Historical standards don't. They're the same all over the world. And what he considers evidence doesn't even rise up to the very basics of what is accepted by history.

Ancient history, rarely works in even near let alone absolute certainties.  Often it doesn't even work in more probably than not but only in the most probable of several competing theories and even then there is room for argument as to which theory is most probable.  Fleshing out a possible theory is a reasonable exercise even if it can't be proven.  It's a good thing we don't generally have to even consider altering our lives over ancient history because so little of it can really be proven, though many things are highly likely and many more highly unlikely.  

This is why, history is not a suitable tool for determining whether miracles, supernatural events, or god exist or have happened.  The standard of proof in history never reaches the level necessary to prove extraordinarily improbable events.

[abaris]

This is why, history is not a suitable tool for determining whether miracles, supernatural events, or god exist or have happened.  The standard of proof in history never reaches the level necessary to prove extraordinarily improbable events.

[/quote]

And his American courtroom example does? Give me a frigging break. The American system ends outside American shores.

History doesn't deal in supernatural events, but it does deal in - well - historical facts or the absence thereoff.

[Angrboda]

God is real. God is alive. And God can and does make Himself known to those who seek him. This knowledge is not based on archaeological evidence or examination of ancient texts...it is based upon revelation and relationship.

I can imagine myself saying the same thing.... as a former Hindu.

[Whateverist]

It seems to me that atheists begin with the presupposition that GOD DOES NOT EXIST, and all the rest of their efforts are geared toward explaining away anything that suggests otherwise.

You continue to insist on how things seem to you while ignoring what most of us say about atheism. I, and most of us, do not begin with the presupposition that God does not exist. Most of us are agnostic toward the possibility, and atheist only insofar as those making the positive claim have not convinced us of what it is they believe. (Many also do not feel the term has been defined sufficiently to even allow me to rule out the possibility that I may have actually run into the Dude.) There is no prior investment in not believing in your god.

God is real. God is alive. And God can and does make Himself known to those who seek him. This knowledge is not based on archaeological evidence or examination of ancient texts...it is based upon revelation and relationship.

I'd like to know why you assume that which is claimed to have been reveled comes from the same source as that which you think you experience in relationship or with that which is written in ancient texts such as the bible. Seems to me that most believers rely most heavily on what they feel is an ongoing relationship with God. But I think that is very easily explained psychologically which has the advantage of also explaining how Jormunguadr could have had a similar relationship with Kali as well as explain the experience of people in any other faith based system.

Apart from the ongoing relationship, the other two sources about to the same thing. Revelation and holy books both represent claims of others regarding the nature of the deity and what he wants from you. Putting the two things together requires a leap of faith which I don't find justified, not when the most compelling evidence -the ongoing relationship- can be so adequately explained in way which does not require you to imagine a being which created everything out of nothing, etc.

[Ravenshire]

First, we are instructed to make disciples of all nations (as you note below), and second, we think we have a pretty important message that will benefit others.

I'm going to address this point, even coming late to the party, because there's a very important counter point that Randy seems to be missing.

We've all heard you message Randy. Many time in many flavors. Imagine taking a weekend and spending it channel surfing. The entire weekend, all 48 hours worth. Now, take out all the television programming, leaving just the commercials. This is how you sound to us. We've heard it all before, over and over and over again.

There's a reason I never buy I-phones, Budweiser or shop at Walmart. Their marketing doesn't convince me.

Add to this, you're a poor marketer.

[Randy Carson]

He's just going back to his old courtroom shtick although I already owned him on that. It's not worth the effort to engage him on anything. That guy is just a sleazy phony.