Testimony is Evidence

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

I don't know. Maybe I more than a bit jaded from my time on AF. While you may sincerely hope to be convinced, I see far too many atheists claiming to be open to evidence but I doubt that they are expressing a genuine sentiment. Given the insults and ridicule L4C hurled my way when she first joined, I find it difficult to believe she would accept any evidence at all.

[RoadRunner79]

LCF/TGB:   DNA and eyewitness testimony are not on equal footing in terms of strength as evidence.  DNA evidence overturns cases based off of eyewitness testimony all the time, but eyewitness testimony has never overturned a case based in DNA evidence.

RR: And what is the difference if testimony overturns DNA evidence in the first trial or the appeal?

Get it now...?


Has never overturned a case, or you have not heard of one?  It does seem like most of the news is about DNA and most of what you get in a search (because it's new).  But that doesn't mean never.  How did you come to this conclusion?   Also, I still ask what is the difference if it occurs in trial or after?

The same reasons apply, unless you want to support a category error.   If you are saying that Testimony is not evidence...

I never once said that.  In fact, I have been one of a few minority who concedes that eyewitness testimony IS a form of evidence, but of the very low quality and unreliable variety.  Having you been paying attention to my participation in these threads at all? Try again with less straw.

of X,Y,Z.  Then if X,Y,Z are found in DNA cases, it would also follow that DNA is not evidence for the same reasons.  (assuming that the argument is valid to begin with).  

If not

• there is something else, which you are basing your reasoning on (which needs to be stated and supported).
  
• there are special circumstances which makes something apply or not apply to one or the other (which you need to give your reasons for).
  
• You are just inconsistent in applying your logic.
  
• Or the argument was never really logical to begin with.
  

This is why the anecdotes of false convictions based on testimony are not evidence. They may be evidence of a single case, but a conclusion based on a small sample (especially if you cherry pick only cases that support your conclusion) is not good reasoning for a general proclamation on the entire category..   Now I do believe that both DNA and testimony are generally reliable and both are considered evidence.   So in these arguments, there must be something wrong in the premise  (Not evidence because of X,Y,Z) Now you could make the arguments or show the figures that testimony as a whole
is generally unreliable with a success rate lower than a certain threshold of which we could compare to other things as well.  However this is not being done.

Now if you think my reasons are faulty or that I still don't know how logic works, please be specific, in what you feel I'm doing wrong.

The rest of this gibberish is irrelevant because you have failed to accurately represent my position at the start.  You and Steve need serious work on your reading comprehension skills.

I'm sorry, if I mistaken some other's positions, with your low quality and unreliable variety.  However the argument still applies, that if the reasons are the same, then the same conclusion should follow.  I agree, that we need to test our witnesses, and any testimony given by others.  And with DNA there is a further interpretation also.  And even though I misspoke regarding your position, the rest still applies also here.  As I  mentioned before, and no one still seems to want to answer, it seems to me, that there are three ways in which we form our beliefs.  Personal witness, testimony from others, and reason.  Unless you want to make an argument for feelings, is there anything that you would add?  This concerns how the facts or information where acquired, and processing that information.  I don't see how one can argue against these in any meaningful way, without undercutting their own arguments.  As we seen here, even when I wasn't questioning, the testimony, I was criticized for disregarding the evidence.  This is nonsensical to me.

edit to add.....  I do appreciate the few posters, that when you strip away the name calling, insults, and restating the conclusion do have some discussion.  Thanks,

[LadyForCamus]

 


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.

I don't know. Maybe I more than a bit jaded from my time on AF. While you  may sincerely hope to be convinced, I see far too many atheists claiming to be open to evidence but I doubt that they are expressing a genuine sentiment. Given the insults and ridicule L4C hurled my way when she first joined, I find it difficult to believe she would accept any evidence at all.

Neo, I don't think it's particularly fair for you to still be holding a grudge against me based on my contributions as a new member almost TWO years ago.  Everyone has a learning curve.  And as far as the insults go, I'm pretty sure you threw the first punch in my first post. Thanks for telling me how I really feel, btw.  I still grieve the loss of my belief in god.  I still cry over it.  Hell, I made a thread about it here, and you participated.  So is it that you really don't think I'm being sincere?  Or are you just trying to sling insults from "ignore" land?  Didn't you just say a few pages back that we should stop questioning each other's motives and just talk about the subject of the thread?  Who's behaving immaturely now?

Not that you're going to read this, but I guess for anyone else still following along.

[Edwardo Piet]

Testimony has to be backed up with other evidence.

Because it's not evidence!

[Whateverist]

 


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.

I don't know. Maybe I more than a bit jaded from my time on AF. While you  may sincerely hope to be convinced, I see far too many atheists claiming to be open to evidence but I doubt that they are expressing a genuine sentiment. Given the insults and ridicule L4C hurled my way when she first joined, I find it difficult to believe she would accept any evidence at all.

Speaking only for myself of course I don't think it has anything to do with wanting to be convinced. I read LoC as saying she feels she lost something she'd rather not have lost in losing her faith. I don't think that means she is looking for a really good pitch to get her back in the fold.

When I was a child I imagined I'd enjoy eternal life and get to keep company with Jesus who I simply imagined as "the best" morally. There'd be time to get every question answered. Cool. But, hey, I was a kid. I'm over it. Not looking to become convinced.

The poll I started was really intended to find out who was at all sorry to lose their faith, and what aspect of god would they most have been sorry to lose. Again, not speaking for LoC or anyone else but I don't think it has anything to do with seeking to be convinced. No wants the hard sell.

[Cyberman]

I don't know. Maybe I more than a bit jaded from my time on AF. While you  may sincerely hope to be convinced, I see far too many atheists claiming to be open to evidence but I doubt that they are expressing a genuine sentiment. Given the insults and ridicule L4C hurled my way when she first joined, I find it difficult to believe she would accept any evidence at all.

How many times do I have to say that that's not your call to make? Why can't you simply present your evidence and leave it to us to decide whether or not we find it convincing? Complaining about our integrity only serves to make us think you don't have any evidence, or at least have no confidence in what you may have.

[Amarok]

Insults have no bearing on wiether or not some one can be convinced . The two things are not relevant to each other no matter how much Wooters cries victim (while often doing all the same things he accuses other people of)

[LadyForCamus]

I don't know. Maybe I more than a bit jaded from my time on AF. While you  may sincerely hope to be convinced, I see far too many atheists claiming to be open to evidence but I doubt that they are expressing a genuine sentiment. Given the insults and ridicule L4C hurled my way when she first joined, I find it difficult to believe she would accept any evidence at all.

Speaking only for myself of course I don't think it has anything to do with wanting to be convinced.  I read LoC as saying she feels she lost something she'd rather not have lost in losing her faith.  I don't think that means she is looking for a really good pitch to get her back in the fold.  

When I was a child I imagined I'd enjoy eternal life and get to keep company with Jesus who I simply imagined as "the best" morally.  There'd be time to get every question answered.  Cool.  But, hey, I was a kid.  I'm over it.  Not looking to become convinced.

The poll I started was really intended to find out who was at all sorry to lose their faith, and what aspect of god would they most have been sorry to lose.  Again, not speaking for LoC or anyone else but I don't think it has anything to do with seeking to be convinced.  No wants the hard sell.

Yes, this is exactly it, Whateverist.  Thank you for clarifying.

---

LCF/TGB:   DNA and eyewitness testimony are not on equal footing in terms of strength as evidence.  DNA evidence overturns cases based off of eyewitness testimony all the time, but eyewitness testimony has never overturned a case based in DNA evidence.

RR: And what is the difference if testimony overturns DNA evidence in the first trial or the appeal?

Get it now...?


Has never overturned a case, or you have not heard of one?  It does seem like most of the news is about DNA and most of what you get in a search (because it's new).  But that doesn't mean never.  How did you come to this conclusion?   Also, I still ask what is the difference if it occurs in trial or after?


I never once said that.  In fact, I have been one of a few minority who concedes that eyewitness testimony IS a form of evidence, but of the very low quality and unreliable variety.  Having you been paying attention to my participation in these threads at all? Try again with less straw.



The rest of this gibberish is irrelevant because you have failed to accurately represent my position at the start.  You and Steve need serious work on your reading comprehension skills.

I'm sorry, if I mistaken some other's positions, with your low quality and unreliable variety.  However the argument still applies, that if the reasons are the same, then the same conclusion should follow.  I agree, that we need to test our witnesses, and any testimony given by others.  And with DNA there is a further interpretation also.  And even though I misspoke regarding your position, the rest still applies also here.  As I  mentioned before, and no one still seems to want to answer, it seems to me, that there are three ways in which we form our beliefs.  Personal witness, testimony from others, and reason.  Unless you want to make an argument for feelings, is there anything that you would add?  This concerns how the facts or information where acquired, and processing that information.  I don't see how one can argue against these in any meaningful way, without undercutting their own arguments.  As we seen here, even when I wasn't questioning, the testimony, I was criticized for disregarding the evidence.  This is nonsensical to me.

edit to add.....  I do appreciate the few posters, that when you strip away the name calling, insults, and restating the conclusion do have some discussion.  Thanks,

Are you saying, RR, that you think witness testimony is on par with all other forms of evidence available to us?  That DNA evidence is as much "testimony" as any other testimony?  I just want to be sure I'm understanding you correctly here...

[Astonished]

Testimony has to be backed up with other evidence.

Because it's not evidence!

Because it's just another assertion.

 


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.

I don't know. Maybe I more than a bit jaded from my time on AF. While you  may sincerely hope to be convinced, I see far too many atheists claiming to be open to evidence but I doubt that they are expressing a genuine sentiment. Given the insults and ridicule L4C hurled my way when she first joined, I find it difficult to believe she would accept any evidence at all.

Look, boner, your fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method and what constitutes evidence does NOT reflect badly upon us, it reflects badly upon YOU and not only does not help you build a case, but it makes your personal credibility decrease. The one thing rational skeptics ask for, nay, DEMAND, is REAL FUCKING EVIDENCE, and enough volume of evidence sufficient to warrant belief in any given assertion. It helps religions' case not one bit to continually claim that their only source of proof is 'beyond science' or that it has to be interpreted in their specific way in order to reach their conclusions. You don't want to be insulted? Start acting like a respectable human being and stop demonstrating that you have the mind of a child who can't figure out these extremely simple concepts, and stop arguing with us because you're ignorant of the points you're failing to make by repeating yourself ad nauseum when you've already been proven wrong time and again. You want to argue or raise a valid point, come up with some that aren't incredibly stupid, demonstrably wrong, or which haven't been tried billions of times and are still unconvincing.

[bennyboy]

I don't know. Maybe I more than a bit jaded from my time on AF. While you  may sincerely hope to be convinced, I see far too many atheists claiming to be open to evidence but I doubt that they are expressing a genuine sentiment. Given the insults and ridicule L4C hurled my way when she first joined, I find it difficult to believe she would accept any evidence at all.

There's an awful lot of talk about positions, stances, and so on.

What there hasn't been is an attempt to produce testimony so we can examine on what basis we feel it should / shouldn't be accepted.

---

Look, boner, your fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method and what constitutes evidence does NOT reflect badly upon us, it reflects badly upon YOU and not only does not help you build a case, but it makes your personal credibility decrease. The one thing rational skeptics ask for, nay, DEMAND, is REAL FUCKING EVIDENCE, and enough volume of evidence sufficient to warrant belief in any given assertion. It helps religions' case not one bit to continually claim that their only source of proof is 'beyond science' or that it has to be interpreted in their specific way in order to reach their conclusions. You don't want to be insulted? Start acting like a respectable human being and stop demonstrating that you have the mind of a child who can't figure out these extremely simple concepts, and stop arguing with us because you're ignorant of the points you're failing to make by repeating yourself ad nauseum when you've already been proven wrong time and again. You want to argue or raise a valid point, come up with some that aren't incredibly stupid, demonstrably wrong, or which haven't been tried billions of times and are still unconvincing.

Too much melodrama. The Christians are arguing as they think best. Because they lack evidence we consider sufficient, we reserve the right not to accept either the specific Christian tenets or the God idea in general. But your response here seems pointless-- you are taking the time to type words, but what goal do you have in mind for speaking in this way?