Testimony is Evidence

[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.