Testimony is Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

@steve -

I believe you are trying to sneak science through the back door without having to actually do it.  Phrases like, 'take care,' and 'background information' are just softer, and less threatening than saying 'controlling variables' and, 'gathering data.'  You don't get to call upon these tools and then let them hang in the empty space of a syllogism.  You're responsible for them.  You're asserting there exists a method of quality control which allows us to distinguish (to some as of yet unspecified degree of accuracy) between reliable and unreliable testimony, and that in doing so, we can reasonably accept claims based on testimony alone.  You don't get to assert that, and then hide behind a logical argument.  You bare the burden of demonstrating the efficacy of this proposed method.  If you can't, then your conclusion is meaningless to the real world.  Two points:

1. I don't think you could if you tried. Even if you were able to control for every single one of the metrics you listed, you're still only demonstrating, at best, that your witness is reliable.  Witness reliability does not necessarily equal accurate testimony, as reliable witnesses give inaccurate testimony all the time.  

2.  If you were able to demonstrate this method to be at least as efficacious as holding one's breath on a testimonial until stronger evidence arises, it renders your argument dead in the water, as you have now relied on objective, external, corroborating evidence to support a logical conclusion about testimony being reliable and sufficient on its own, in the absence of corroborating evidence.  

I dare say all of this was just elaborate hand-waving in order to shift the focus on to the nature of claimant and away from the nature of the claim.  I wonder why that would be?

Yep, after 16 years of online debate with theists of every label you can think of, when you hear, "I'm not trying to argue my religion,(insert Christianity, Islam, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist) here, it is a dead give away that they will in the future, maybe not in the moment you are engaging in, but the theist always does.

If they cant argue flat out, they get sneaky by trying to either debunk science or try to co op science. It is like exposing a Vegas sidewalk 3 cup and ball trick. 

The problem is as much as they are trying to convince you, even more what they are really doing is trying to convince themselves. Theism is not neutral or objective or universal. It never has been nor will be.

The amount of work they're willing to put into it is baffling.  I can see how someone like WLC is able to generate fame and fortune from
the manipulative, fallacious crap he spews.