Testimony is Evidence

[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...