(August 2, 2017 at 12:54 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(August 2, 2017 at 12:22 pm)Astonished Wrote: How about this, why don't you break down a hierarchy of what you consider the best evidence and why, what's the second best and why, all the way down to what's the worst and why? That way you might actually convey some information. That statement you made doesn't exactly make anything clear.
Also, I can't believe I neglected to do this sooner, it only just occurred to me; Beep-Beep, what exactly makes you think testimony, eyewitness or otherwise, is of value? Considering I gave an entire litany of why it objectively is not reliable and therefore logically should not be considered valuable, what are the reasons you believe it defies all of those problems to the point where it's actually significant? Just, go on, give it a try. I notice theists aren't generally capable of coherently giving the 'why', but merely the 'what' (and barely coherently there, either).
I don't see it as a categorical hierarchy. To me, it depends on the circumstances, and how well the individual or collective evidence makes something evident.
It's really on a case by case basis. Normally, if we are only talking about a single point of evidence, I don't consider that very good. Different types of evidence can have different limitations, different false results, that may need to be accounted for, and different ways to make sure they are handled properly.
I didn't want to make this thread a debate about witness testimony, and I still don't. I have given my views before, and made arguments as to why I think it should not be abandoned as evidence. If you would like to make a new thread, I will likely join and discuss.
Are you aware-or at least able to understand-that this looks like you're trying to make other evidence look as fallible and unreliable as testimony? That this comes across as an incredible, unwarranted and propaganda-esque dismissal of the value of any evidence at all, just so that you can make it seem as though the worst sort of evidence (the only sort the scriptures have going for them) is still on a comparable footing with every other type? Can you see how, in our shoes, this is what it sounds like you're doing here? That this may be one of the reasons it's so difficult to take anything you say seriously because it's simultaneously maximally ignorant and maximally dishonest?
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.