Testimony is Evidence

[Astonished]

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?

His desire to blame us for his failed arguments is only hurting him, which will never motivate him to either stop or improve his performance. I'm simply pointing out the problem (with a little 'tough love') and laying blame where it actually belongs so as to inspire thoughts in a different direction than their consistent collision course that leads nowhere. Good enough?

[Minimalist]

I find it difficult to believe she would accept any evidence at all.

If you had some maybe we could tell.  All you've got is the stupid fucking bible and we already know that is pure human invention and propaganda.

[RoadRunner79]

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...

I think that it is going to depend on the particulars of the case, and what the each piece of evidence is presenting and how it connects with others. Either may overturn the other depending on the circumstances. And yes, any facts or information from DNA, for me, is going to come from testimony or be information passed to me from another.

[Astonished]

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...

I think that it is going to depend on the particulars of the case, and what the each piece of evidence is presenting and how it connects with others.  Either may overturn the other depending on the circumstances.   And yes, any facts or information from DNA, for me, is going to come from testimony or be information passed to me from another.

Oh, so NOW you decide to take a position on it? And not even a definitive one at that from the sound of it (I'll give you a hint; that makes your defense of testimony look really weak). Might as well have given me the same answer as when I first asked you.

[Amarok]

I think that it is going to depend on the particulars of the case, and what the each piece of evidence is presenting and how it connects with others.  Either may overturn the other depending on the circumstances.   And yes, any facts or information from DNA, for me, is going to come from testimony or be information passed to me from another.

Oh, so NOW you decide to take a position on it? And not even a definitive one at that from the sound of it (I'll give you a hint; that makes your defense of testimony look really weak). Might as well have given me the same answer as when I first asked you.

Now watch him change his statement 5 comments later

[Astonished]

Oh, so NOW you decide to take a position on it? And not even a definitive one at that from the sound of it (I'll give you a hint; that makes your defense of testimony look really weak). Might as well have given me the same answer as when I first asked you.

Now watch him change his statement 5 comments later

What statement? He was totally non-committal.

[Amarok]

Now watch him change his statement 5 comments later

What statement? He was totally non-committal.

Exactly he will go from one half assed semi position .Then go in the wiggle elsewhere to the same effect.

[bennyboy]

His desire to blame us for his failed arguments is only hurting him, which will never motivate him to either stop or improve his performance. I'm simply pointing out the problem (with a little 'tough love') and laying blame where it actually belongs so as to inspire thoughts in a different direction than their consistent collision course that leads nowhere. Good enough?

Fair enough.

Frankly, I don't want negative rhetoric to give him an excuse to disregard the many clear points that have been directed at him.

I'm still waiting, after 25 pages or whatever, for an example of testimony that we can consider.

[Astonished]

His desire to blame us for his failed arguments is only hurting him, which will never motivate him to either stop or improve his performance. I'm simply pointing out the problem (with a little 'tough love') and laying blame where it actually belongs so as to inspire thoughts in a different direction than their consistent collision course that leads nowhere. Good enough?

Fair enough.

Frankly, I don't want negative rhetoric to give him an excuse to disregard the many clear points that have been directed at him.

I'm still waiting, after 25 pages or whatever, for an example of testimony that we can consider.

As are we all.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that it is going to depend on the particulars of the case, and what the each piece of evidence is presenting and how it connects with others.  Either may overturn the other depending on the circumstances.   And yes, any facts or information from DNA, for me, is going to come from testimony or be information passed to me from another.

All these threads...and for what?  Because you don't understand the difference between evidence and testimony.  Because -you- think "it's all testimony".