Testimony is Evidence

[bennyboy]

Why do you cling to this unsupported assertion? Your reason has been obvious since the beginning: you want to preserve your objection to the evidence for Christianity. 

For the fourth (and last) time, tell me why this is not more accurate:

     1 A witness's recollection could be wrong
     2 The witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record serve can minimize the possibility of error
     3 The context of the event can minimize the possibility of error
     4 Therefore the reliability of testimony varies depending on the witness and the context

What you don't get is that it is up to the one hearing an idea to establish the quality of evidence required. If I've known someone a long time, then even very weak evidence is acceptable. . . to me. If I perceive a person to be honest, then their testimony is good enough. . . for me. If enough people speak in moving terms about how the Flying Spaghetti Monster saved their miserable lives, then their testimony is good enough. . . for me.

So. . . start producing testimony, and I'll tell you if I consider it sufficiently strong for me to adopt the God idea.

[LastPoet]

There is no evidence for xtianity.... merely the pious bleating of later believers, heavily edited and error-ridden gibberish which supposedly fully grown adults still think is real.

Nitpicking, christianity does exist Min, look how many of them are.

The myths they believe in... zero.

[vorlon13]

There is no evidence for xtianity.... merely the pious bleating of later believers, heavily edited and error-ridden gibberish which supposedly fully grown adults still think is real.

Nitpicking, christianity does exist Min, look how many of them are.

The myths they believe in... zero.

Except Jesus being crucified on Thursday AND Friday.  All the rest is made up fanciful crapola, but the double crucifixion is GOD'S ABSOLUTE TRUTH !!!!!!!!!!

[SteveII]

Why do you cling to this unsupported assertion? Your reason has been obvious since the beginning: you want to preserve your objection to the evidence for Christianity. 

For the fourth (and last) time, tell me why this is not more accurate:

     1 A witness's recollection could be wrong
     2 The witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record serve can minimize the possibility of error
     3 The context of the event can minimize the possibility of error
     4 Therefore the reliability of testimony varies depending on the witness and the context

What you don't get is that it is up to the one hearing an idea to establish the quality of evidence required.  If I've known someone a long time, then even very weak evidence is acceptable. . . to me.  If I perceive a person to be honest, then their testimony is good enough. . . for me.  If enough people speak in moving terms about how the Flying Spaghetti Monster saved their miserable lives, then their testimony is good enough. . . for me.

So. . . start producing testimony, and I'll tell you if I consider it sufficiently strong for me to adopt the God idea.

How do you know "I don't get"? I don't disagree with your first three sentences. It also has nothing to do with the topic/point I was making. 

As to your last sentence, that is not the topic of this thread or this subforum.

[LadyForCamus]

You continue to just restate your position over and over and NEVER addressed any of my points--

Lol, You're right.  This is what I'm forced to do when you insist on misrepresenting my argument over, and over, and OVER.  There  is no point in going any further in the discussion until you can demonstrate that you understand what my position is.  You're like, 0 for 4, and I'm growing tired of all the straw.

-which if you did, it would long ago have illustrated your position is easily undermined simply by answering my questions.

You have yet to accurately characterize my position, which is strange, because I feel like I've been pretty straight forward about it...

You are basing your whole position on witness testimony being "inherently unreliable as a form of evidence"

That's because it IS.  I'm sorry you don't like that fact, but your inability to accept demonstrable facts you don't happen to care for is not really my problem.

the face of the fact that we use this form of evidence in even the most serious circumstances millions of time per day.

I addressed this in my previous reply to you.  Did you bother to read it...?

is not the case that once a matter gets to some subjective threshold of consequential, we discard witness testimony.

Lol, Steve.  You suck at this, you know that? Please point to where in my previous response to you, I said anything about discarding testimony?  Straw. What I said very clearly was, once a person gets to that subjective threshold they should (if they want to have rational beliefs only) withhold belief in that claim until more reliable, corroborating evidence is found.  Either your reading comprehension sucks, or you're playing stupid.  Either way, I'm getting bored quickly.

Your examples point out, the distinction between mundane and consequential claims is handled with MORE evidence--not a discarding of one type of evidence in favor of a different kind of evidence.

Correct.  For once.

Why do you cling to this unsupported assertion? Your reason has been obvious since the beginning: you want to preserve your objection to the evidence for Christianity.

As I said before, you're the one with the unsupported assertion.  The statement, 'witness testimony is inherently unreliable as a form of evidence,' is well supported.  Go ahead.  Ask me for some evidence.  It's literally everywhere. You'd have to be living under a rock, or in a fantasy world to try and dispute it.

Secondly, you're pitching more straw by assuming I care that much about objecting to Christianity.  If you bothered to get to know me as a person, you'd have noticed by now I'm one of the few atheists around here who would actually be pleased to find out a god exists.  Godlessness is is not my preferred position.   But until even a tiny shred of convincing evidence arises, it's where I stand.  

For the fourth (and last) time, tell me why this is not more accurate:

1 A witness's recollection could be wrong
2 The witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record serve can minimize the possibility of error[/size] 3 The context of the event can minimize the possibility of error
4 Therefore the reliability of testimony varies depending on the witness and the context.

More accurate than what?   Your logical argument is not, and never will be, "more accurate" than actual evidence, Steve.  It's irrelevant in the face of actual evidence. There is no rational case to be made for believing in supernatural claims SOLELY on testimony of any kind.

[Whateverist]

Why do you cling to this unsupported assertion? Your reason has been obvious since the beginning: you want to preserve your objection to the evidence for Christianity.

As I said before, you're the one with the unsupported assertion.  The statement, 'witness testimony is inherently unreliable as a form of evidence,' is well supported.  Go ahead.  Ask me for some evidence.  It's literally everywhere. You'd have to be living under a rock, or in a fantasy world to try and dispute it.

Secondly, you're pitching more straw by assuming I care that much about objecting to Christianity.  If you bothered to get to know me as a person, you'd have noticed by now I'm one of the few atheists around here who would actually be pleased to find out a god exists.  Godlessness is is not my preferred position.   But until even a tiny shred of convincing evidence arises, it's where I stand.

 


Would have said the same (my bolded) some time ago. Now I neither expect it nor would welcome it, leastwise not if this is some sniveling, worship seeking god eager to reward or punish us we're talking about, who at all approximates the biblical version. Think this calls for a poll though to see just how prevalent that sentiment is here.

[LadyForCamus]

And besides, even if you HAD an argument for testimony, nothing written down in the Bible even comes close to eyewitness testimony. So, you're wasting your time if all of this is for Jesus.

---

What you don't get is that it is up to the one hearing an idea to establish the quality of evidence required.  If I've known someone a long time, then even very weak evidence is acceptable. . . to me.  If I perceive a person to be honest, then their testimony is good enough. . . for me.  If enough people speak in moving terms about how the Flying Spaghetti Monster saved their miserable lives, then their testimony is good enough. . . for me.

So. . . start producing testimony, and I'll tell you if I consider it sufficiently strong for me to adopt the God idea.

How do you know "I don't get"? I don't disagree with your first three sentences. It also has nothing to do with the topic/point I was making. 

As to your last sentence, that is not the topic of this thread or this subforum.

It has everything to do with the point I was making, Steve.  A point you apparently still don't comprehend.

[Amarok]

Your reason has been obvious since the beginning: you want to preserve your objection to the evidence for Christianity.

One could just as easily accuse you of the contrary . And has people like this on it's side

[bennyboy]

What you don't get is that it is up to the one hearing an idea to establish the quality of evidence required.  If I've known someone a long time, then even very weak evidence is acceptable. . . to me.  If I perceive a person to be honest, then their testimony is good enough. . . for me.  If enough people speak in moving terms about how the Flying Spaghetti Monster saved their miserable lives, then their testimony is good enough. . . for me.

So. . . start producing testimony, and I'll tell you if I consider it sufficiently strong for me to adopt the God idea.

How do you know "I don't get"? I don't disagree with your first three sentences. It also has nothing to do with the topic/point I was making. 

As to your last sentence, that is not the topic of this thread or this subforum.

Presumably your point was that I'm clinging to an unsupported assertion in order to preserve my objection to the evidence for Christianity, since you had in fact bolded that point.

I'm telling you that there's no internal struggle, no particular effort needed.  You seem to think the trumpets of truth are blaring throughout the Universe, and I'm struggling with all my might and with my hands over my ears not to hear it.

This is not the case.  You hold ideas which I do not accept as likely to represent truth.  If you want me to seriously consider, and potentially accept, your ideas, you'll have to demonstrate the quality and kind of evidence which will convince ME.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is not the case.  You hold ideas which I do not accept as likely to represent truth.  If you want me to seriously consider, and potentially accept, your ideas, you'll have to demonstrate the quality and kind of evidence which will convince ME.

This is the crux of the matter. Gravity, for instance, has no use for religions browbeating adherents with the threat of eternal damnation for non-acceptance, and there's a reason for that: gravity is evident to anyone walking the Earth who endeavors to jump, or even climb out of bed. We experience it directly. It is evidenced in every moment of our experience unless we're shot into space. And even then we must muster enormous amounts of energy to achieve that feat.

It is a fact. And facts have a nice property: they make themselves plain.

Any claim which must appeal to apologetics, panegyrics, and threats is probably not a fact.