If theists understood "evidence"

[onlinebiker]

What is it, that you think is not understood?

What YOU do not understand - intentionally, I suspect since you are not stupid - is that a bald assertion is not "evidence."  There's a line in an old book!  It must be true!  Unless it's a book written by someone you don't already worship. Homer writes that Poseidon blew Odysseus out to sea?  Well, that can't be true but if some unknown shlepper writes that "jesus" healed a cripple you fall on your face and insist THAT happened.  And worst of all, YOU don't get it and probably never will because your delusion is so willful.

"Evidence" must be examined.  That is where all religious bullshit fails.  Face value counts for exactly nothing.

Exactly - a story isn't EVIDENCE. It needs to be verified by facts.

Referring back to the story ( it' s in the Bible) as confirmational evidence - or simply by how convincing the teller sounds - isn't evidence.

---

What YOU do not understand - intentionally, I suspect since you are not stupid - is that a bald assertion is not "evidence."  There's a line in an old book!  It must be true!  Unless it's a book written by someone you don't already worship. Homer writes that Poseidon blew Odysseus out to sea?  Well, that can't be true but if some unknown shlepper writes that "jesus" healed a cripple you fall on your face and insist THAT happened.  And worst of all, YOU don't get it and probably never will because your delusion is so willful.

"Evidence" must be examined.  That is where all religious bullshit fails.  Face value counts for exactly nothing.

Oh yes.... witness testimony is not evidence.
So then.... set Bill Cosby FREEE!!!!   We also seemed to have shown, that is not the case recently, or are you saying that the democrats had no reason to cite delay and to not confirm Kavenaugh?

As well, witness testimony is used in historical research, and in criminal trials all the time.   Atheists just seem to have double standards when it comes to things that don't fit their narrative.

Cosby's case has nothing to do with anythIng we are talking about --- but I will play ---

Normally you might have something -- but the testimony that buried him was his own. In the 2005-2006 civil case against him - Mr Cosby admitted to buying the Quaaludes that he drugged women with.

That' s called cooberating evidence that's rather unimpeachable.

[RoadRunner79]

This seems like the same response I have gotten when asking similar questions of atheists claims that theists just need to be educated or lack critical thinking .   It's appears (to me) to be nothing more than sophism, and a way to disparage others, without any real solid backing or reason for the claim.   As usual, the result is just senseless attacks on Christianity, with nothing to support it.   I wonder if that fits under the prime directive rule?

What evidence exists for the Christian faith?  Please pick your "top 3" items.

Well, you have the witness testimony, as well as philosophical arguments such as the ontological argument, the moral argument (the argument from good), also, inductive arguments from the observation of nature, such as the fine tuning arguments.   There are also more which I'm sure you have heard of.    Which is why I think that atheists are some mix of dishonest and delusional, if they are saying that Christians don't give evidence and reason for their belief.  Sometimes they may be evident of different things or aspects (showing different things).  They become hyper skeptical and irrational when it comes to God, employing double standards and sophism.  Most don't deal with the subject with much intellectual honesty.

---

What YOU do not understand - intentionally, I suspect since you are not stupid - is that a bald assertion is not "evidence."  There's a line in an old book!  It must be true!  Unless it's a book written by someone you don't already worship. Homer writes that Poseidon blew Odysseus out to sea?  Well, that can't be true but if some unknown shlepper writes that "jesus" healed a cripple you fall on your face and insist THAT happened.  And worst of all, YOU don't get it and probably never will because your delusion is so willful.

"Evidence" must be examined.  That is where all religious bullshit fails.  Face value counts for exactly nothing.

Exactly - a story isn't EVIDENCE. It needs to be verified by facts.

Referring back to the story ( it' s in the Bible) as confirmational evidence - or simply by how convincing the teller sounds - isn't evidence.

---

Oh yes.... witness testimony is not evidence.
So then.... set Bill Cosby FREEE!!!!   We also seemed to have shown, that is not the case recently, or are you saying that the democrats had no reason to cite delay and to not confirm Kavenaugh?

As well, witness testimony is used in historical research, and in criminal trials all the time.   Atheists just seem to have double standards when it comes to things that don't fit their narrative.

Cosby's case has nothing to do with anythIng we are talking about --- but I will play ---

Normally you might have something -- but the testimony that buried him was his own. In the 2005-2006 civil case against him - Mr Cosby admitted to buying the Quaaludes that he drugged women with.

That' s called cooberating evidence that's rather unimpeachable.

So you don't have any physical evidence of the drugs?  Just a story? Did you personally witness this, or are you just furthering hear say?

[Jehanne]

What YOU do not understand - intentionally, I suspect since you are not stupid - is that a bald assertion is not "evidence."  There's a line in an old book!  It must be true!  Unless it's a book written by someone you don't already worship. Homer writes that Poseidon blew Odysseus out to sea?  Well, that can't be true but if some unknown shlepper writes that "jesus" healed a cripple you fall on your face and insist THAT happened.  And worst of all, YOU don't get it and probably never will because your delusion is so willful.

"Evidence" must be examined.  That is where all religious bullshit fails.  Face value counts for exactly nothing.

Oh yes.... witness testimony is not evidence.
So then.... set Bill Cosby FREEE!!!!   We also seemed to have shown, that is not the case recently, or are you saying that the democrats had no reason to cite delay and to not confirm Kavenaugh?

As well, witness testimony is used in historical research, and in criminal trials all the time.   Atheists just seem to have double standards when it comes to things that don't fit their narrative.

So, you accept the fact that Travis Walton was abducted by aliens:

Wikipedia -- Travis Walton UFO incident

[RoadRunner79]

Oh yes.... witness testimony is not evidence.
So then.... set Bill Cosby FREEE!!!!   We also seemed to have shown, that is not the case recently, or are you saying that the democrats had no reason to cite delay and to not confirm Kavenaugh?

As well, witness testimony is used in historical research, and in criminal trials all the time.   Atheists just seem to have double standards when it comes to things that don't fit their narrative.

So, you accept the fact that Travis Walton was abducted by aliens:

Wikipedia -- Travis Walton UFO incident

Here we go again.....
Perhaps, his testimony is a part of the evidence to consider.

Are you saying that testimony is never evidence?    It would seem the the courts, scholars, and most people do not agree with you.

Or we can skip this nonsense, where you have to believe everything that everyone has said, or nothing at all.  I think that you look at the evidence, what it says, what evidence can corroborate or contradict it.  You know.... apply some of that critical thinking I'm always hearing about here.  And not where it just means personal incredulity.

[onlinebiker]

What evidence exists for the Christian faith?  Please pick your "top 3" items.

Well, you have the witness testimony, as well as philosophical arguments such as the ontological argument, the moral argument (the argument from good), also, inductive arguments from the observation of nature, such as the fine tuning arguments.   There are also more which I'm sure you have heard of.    Which is why I think that atheists are some mix of dishonest and delusional, if they are saying that Christians don't give evidence and reason for their belief.  Sometimes they may be evident of different things or aspectdifferent things).  They become hyper skeptical and irrational when it comes to God, employing double standards and sophism.  Most don't deal with the subject with much intellectual honesty.

---

Exactly - a story isn't EVIDENCE. It needs to be verified by facts.

Referring back to the story ( it' s in the Bible) as confirmational evidence - or simply by how convincing the teller sounds - isn't evidence.

---

Cosby's case has nothing to do with anythIng we are talking about --- but I will play ---

Normally you might have something -- but the testimony that buried him was his own. In the 2005-2006 civil case against him - Mr Cosby admitted to buying the Quaaludes that he drugged women with.

That' s called cooberating evidence that's rather unimpeachable.

So you don't have any physical evidence of the drugs?  Just a story?  Did you personally witness this, or are you just furthering hear say?

Do you understand cooberation?


Mr Cosby cooberated testimony against him.

That makes that testimony more likely than a " he said/ she said"situation.

....

---

So, you accept the fact that Travis Walton was abducted by aliens:

Wikipedia -- Travis Walton UFO incident

Here we go again.....
Perhaps, his testimony is a part of the evidence to consider.

Are you saying that testimony is never evidence?    It would seem the the courts, scholars, and most people do not agree with you.

Or we can skip this nonsense, where you have to believe everything that everyone has said, or nothing at all.  I think that you look at the evidence, what it says, what evidence can corroborate or contradict it.  You know.... apply some of that critical thinking I'm always hearing about here.  And not where it just means personal incredulity.

In many - if not most cases - two sides of testimony are not the only choices.

Far too frequently eyewitness testimony contradicts each other. Simply look at Jesus' s last words on dying on the cross --- 3 different versions. Easy in real life - and of course almost mandatory in fiction......

[RoadRunner79]

Well, you have the witness testimony, as well as philosophical arguments such as the ontological argument, the moral argument (the argument from good), also, inductive arguments from the observation of nature, such as the fine tuning arguments.   There are also more which I'm sure you have heard of.    Which is why I think that atheists are some mix of dishonest and delusional, if they are saying that Christians don't give evidence and reason for their belief.  Sometimes they may be evident of different things or aspectdifferent things).  They become hyper skeptical and irrational when it comes to God, employing double standards and sophism.  Most don't deal with the subject with much intellectual honesty.

---

So you don't have any physical evidence of the drugs?  Just a story?  Did you personally witness this, or are you just furthering hear say?

Do you understand cooberation?


Mr Cosby cooberated testimony against him.

That makes that testimony more likely than a " he said/ she said"situation.

....

I'd agree...  Testimony which is embarrassing or condemning is stronger, and one is less likely to make up those details.  I also agree with corroborating evidence.  But testimony is evidence it seems

---

---

Here we go again.....
Perhaps, his testimony is a part of the evidence to consider.

Are you saying that testimony is never evidence?    It would seem the the courts, scholars, and most people do not agree with you.

Or we can skip this nonsense, where you have to believe everything that everyone has said, or nothing at all.  I think that you look at the evidence, what it says, what evidence can corroborate or contradict it.  You know.... apply some of that critical thinking I'm always hearing about here.  And not where it just means personal incredulity.

---

In many - if not most cases - two sides of testimony are not the only choices.

Far too frequently eyewitness testimony contradicts each other. Simply look at Jesus' s last words on dying on the cross --- 3 different versions. Easy in real life - and of course almost mandatory in fiction......

I agree... easy in real life. People may recount different things, that may include or exclude things others do not. Accounts often vary some, when taken in isolation they may seem to have a contradiction, if you treat them like video documentation. However when treated like normal testimony they do not.

[onlinebiker]

Do you understand cooberation?


Mr Cosby cooberated testimony against him.

That makes that testimony more likely than a " he said/ she said"situation.

....

I'd agree...  Testimony which is embarrassing or condemning is stronger, and one is less likely to make up those details.  I also agree with corroborating evidence.  But testimony is evidence it seems

Of course it is - but poor evidence. On it's own it rarely is enough to be used alone in criminal court to convict. Sadly, unless of course your skin is dark. Then it seems to be more weighty.

[RoadRunner79]

I'd agree...  Testimony which is embarrassing or condemning is stronger, and one is less likely to make up those details.  I also agree with corroborating evidence.  But testimony is evidence it seems

Of course it is - but poor evidence. On it's own it rarely is enough to be used alone in criminal court to convict. Sadly, unless of course your skin is dark. Then it seems to be more weighty.

Well then, if the best you have is poor evidence, then set the Pudding man free!


Also, I have posted before, but you can easily google, and find many lawyers who will disagree with you.  If you only have a single witness, it may be a little dicey, but even then it can still convict, and is still given as evidence.  I only see this claim from atheists... I wonder why that is?

[Jehanne]

So, you accept the fact that Travis Walton was abducted by aliens:

Wikipedia -- Travis Walton UFO incident

Here we go again.....
Perhaps, his testimony is a part of the evidence to consider.

Are you saying that testimony is never evidence?    It would seem the the courts, scholars, and most people do not agree with you.

Or we can skip this nonsense, where you have to believe everything that everyone has said, or nothing at all.  I think that you look at the evidence, what it says, what evidence can corroborate or contradict it.  You know.... apply some of that critical thinking I'm always hearing about here.  And not where it just means personal incredulity.

Some testimony is true, while other testimony is false, while other testimony is mistaken, which is why the courts adjudicate such things.

[RoadRunner79]

Here we go again.....
Perhaps, his testimony is a part of the evidence to consider.

Are you saying that testimony is never evidence?    It would seem the the courts, scholars, and most people do not agree with you.

Or we can skip this nonsense, where you have to believe everything that everyone has said, or nothing at all.  I think that you look at the evidence, what it says, what evidence can corroborate or contradict it.  You know.... apply some of that critical thinking I'm always hearing about here.  And not where it just means personal incredulity.

Some testimony is true, while other testimony is false, while other testimony is mistaken, which is why the courts adjudicate such things.

Do they use reason and arguments to do this, or is it more just feelings?