Evidence: The Gathering

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Evidence is anything which might make the elements to be proven more or less likely.  Anything that doesn't do one or the other, isn't evidence at all.   If it provides background information, it might be let in.  If it engages the emotions in a prejudicial way, it may be excluded. 

I agree with every word you say. The standards of proof, as well as what constitutes valid evidence, is everything in a trial. My own conviction was directly the result of a judge being lax with both concepts, and why it was eventually overturned. He changed the standard of proof by eliminating one of the elements that had to be proved by the prosecution (juries don't get to read the actual law being enforced, just the "instructions" from the judge, who interprets it for them and states what exactly must be proved by the plaintiff/state, element by element), and he admitted both emotionally-biased background information (they attacked my atheism blog, including its title, in front of a jury that contained a priest, a youth pastor, and two preachers' wives, by quoting a section where I spoke about drugs, completely out of context, and the only way to put it back into context would have been to read a blog entry in which I attacked several members of the church for lying to their congregations about addiction and the Drug War) as well as evidence that was demonstrably fabricated (blocking us from entering evidence that could prove it so).

It matters, in a discussion/debate, what the standards of proof are, what constitutes legitimate evidence, and whether both sides are held to the standards. We here get frustrated because Christians come here as the Plaintiffs and then refuse to honor any of these standards. They shift the burden, they offer "proofs" that are really just bald assertions without basis, unreliable testimony that cannot be cross-examined (or which they will not really allow cross examination of with honest answers), hearsay evidence, and demonstrably false strawmen of both science and the beliefs of atheism ... and then, even after we have clearly shown that the ideas asserted as evidence were not qualified evidence, were totally bogus from the start, or unfounded assertion with no basis in fact, they just press on as if nothing happened!

To compare the arguments you have been making, Randy, to anything that happens in a courtroom is to do a disservice to the entire concept of Due Process of Law, and I say this as a person who has watched what happens when it goes awry.

---

Since you keep harping on legal standards of proof, let's step back and consider standards of proof in the law and elsewhere.

Don't let yourself be drawn into his "legal" standards bullshit. We were over this before he was sent on his vaccation. Legal standards ain't worth shit when it comes to history. There's a very good reason why both disciplines are taught at different faculties. Both have a very different methodology and legal standards vary from country to country. Historical standards don't. They're the same all over the world. And what he considers evidence doesn't even rise up to the very basics of what is accepted by history.

This is a valid point. However, since they are so apt to engage in this kind of sophistry (by playing on the presumption of most people about how the system works, when the reality is much more complex), I am willing to engage them on those terms. The courtroom standards are sadly lax, even under the best of circumstances... and even so, their "evidence" falls horrifyingly short.