If theists understood "evidence"

[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?

There’s nothing senseless in attacking Christianity. It’s an idea like everything else, so as a result is (and should be) subject to criticism and critiques. Beliefs aren’t sacred.

So no. Any attempt to make a belief subject to PD will be given a physical turd by me to hold whilst they contribute to the forum.

I for one don’t think it’s a lack of critical thinking or lack of education or intelligence. What I do think is that often it’s a cognitive dissonance. People are sceptical (usually) of claims made by people in most instances (such as a stranger asking you to give her $100 to double your money in a week! But you just have to believe that she’ll do it.). This same scepticism doesn’t appear to extend to extraordinary religious claims, though.

Reasonable criticism and critique.  Sure! I think that Christianity has certainly been and should be investigated.   However; double standards and hyper-skepticism no.

Also, I wouldn't recommend your approach described either.

---

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?

You're either forgetting or straight up lying about this as I have given you evidence that even judges are coming to question the validity of testimony as evidence except when it's corroborating physical evidence

No lying.... they still do accept testimony as evidence.
And while I agree, with teaching people of some of the issues of witness testiomony (such as identifying a suspect you do not know, or misleading memories because of questioning), I think that this is mostly an over-reaction by some extreme people.   In any case, as we recently seen in the Kavenaugh hearing, even atheists will put a lot of weight behind even a single account of testimony evidence.