Guardian angel saves baby

[JesusHChrist]

Christians and other believers I suppose, are particularly keen to not let anyone undermine the validity and veracity of so-called "eyewitness testimony".

Much of their argument for a historical Jesus comes from tales of anonymous eyewitnesses, doing all sorts of AMAZING things. Theists throw out "eyewitness testimony" as though it was a killer argument and PROOF. Ha atheists! WE have eyewitness testimony! Oh yes we do! Says so right here in this here 2000 year old book uh huh! Only a fool would not believe our Godly Jewish Zombie tales! Fools!

Unfortunately, as has been brought up here by myself and others, time and time again, eyewitness testimony is not compelling and far from proof. The empirical (theists cue: theists boo and theists hiss!!!) evidence is overwhelming. Scientists, courts, the police, lawyers - hardly a secret - and this has been known empircally now for a few decades at least.

Human memory is frail, faulty and downright wrong far too much of the time. I see it in myself. I remember a movie line and am *certain* of it, but yet, when I go watch the movie, the line is similar but not what I remembered.

For many though it is far worse, getting facts about an incident wrong such as, was it at day or night, gender of the person, race of the person, height, and numerous other circumstances. Material, important facts - wrong. Over and over again.

It's why one bit of hard circumstantial evidence, such as DNA will be more powerful than 10 eyewitnesses.

And yet, the theist must continue to try to elevate the claims of eyewitnesses wherever they find them. Their very beliefs require it. But Jesus really did have a very bad weekend! And we KNOW he ain't all dead-like a cuz he ROSE and people ah did see it ah! They's was witnesses and such! Lotta them! Praise Jeez! and so on.

http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2014/1...ists-weigh

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...s-have-it/

IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare,

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/c...iable.html

Of the 21 cases on the Innocence Network’s 2011 exoneration report, 19 wrongful convictions involved eyewitness testimony. Innocence Network Report, 2011. This is consistent with statistics showing that more than three-quarters of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence relied on faulty eyewitness evidence.

Even after hearing the statistics, we are reluctant to distrust a sincere eyewitness, but decades of research show that memory is neither precise nor fixed.

Forgive me theists, if when I hear about eyewitness this or eyewitness that, I roll my eyes just a bit.

Mockery may follow if I'm in a snit that day (and I'm usually in a snit). Ridicule, if I've run out of good wine and have to break into the swill.