The nature of evidence

[RoadRunner79]

I think, that what I find peculiar, is the way the term "anecdote" is being used here (almost as if being shoe horned in).  Perhaps I view evidence differently.  I see different kinds of evidence having different uses or strengths. I also do not think that evidence and reason is in the domain of science alone.  This may be dependent on the category of the topic one is dealing with.   Strength of evidence can vary, and is really dependent on how well the evidence speaks to uncovering the truth in question. 

A double blind study, with a large number of tests; I believe is very strong evidence.  Yet to demand this type of evidence above all other's even within science; is incorrect.   I don't see evolution or other historical studies in science doing double blind tests.   This is because double blind tests speaks to what is likely to occur in the future, and doesn't describe the past.  Similarly;  the results of such tests do not preclude an anomaly, or speak to the truthfulness or falsity of what happened previously.  It is a poor method of judgement in this manner.

What you guy's are calling "anecdotes" in legal terms, they call direct evidence.  It is called direct, because it speaks directly to what has occurred.  Most often the physical or forensic evidence is circumstantial.  It requires and inductive leap to connect the evidence to the case being made.   This is not to say, that direct evidence, is better or more preferred over circumstantial evidence.   It all depends on what the individual piece of evidence, can tell us, and overall, how all the evidence together works to paint a picture of what occurred. 

In mentioning "testimony of evidence", all I meant, was someone else telling us, what they found or observed.  I may have to rely on others, to tell me, about their scientific results (and reporting all the information accurately), the same as someone telling me, what they observed.

Also, to the poster, who wrote an anecdote, as evidence against anecdotes.   Your post was noticed and appreciated.

[bennyboy]

The problem with Christian "evidence" is that the evidence isn't actually in support of what they claim it supports. If you feel, for example, that under certain conditions some unknown entity is watching you or protecting you, then that's a feeling. That feeling is evidence-- but not for God. It is evidence that people respond to certain situations with certain feelins.

So when someone says, "God entered my heart" and a hundred other people chime in "me, too," this is not evidence for God.

[Ravenshire]

I do not agree that order can come from disorder.

I'm calling bullshit. Order arises from chaos, demonstrably, all the fucking time:

[Ravenshire]

I will prove my atheist claim.

"I don't believe in gods." is my claim.

My evidence is that I'm an atheist.

That's the only particular atheist claim I make.

Practically anything else you're asking is covered by science, not atheism.

No, your claim is "Christianity is a lie" (and not only, also Islam, Judaism and the other religions of the world) and that needs evidence. If you are calling someone a liar you should be based on something, right?

Do you frequently speak for others or do you reserve that for discussions with people who don't drink the same flavor of kool-aid as you?!?

[ignoramus]

I do not agree that order can come from disorder.

I'm calling bullshit. Order arises from chaos, demonstrably, all the fucking time:

Problem is we find patterns in everything!
Italy is shaped like a boot?
Yes, it vaguely resembles a boot.
Everything vaguely resembles something else also...

Jesus fucking Christ on a cracker!   Theists, give us a break!

[Redbeard The Pink]

I will prove my atheist claim.

"I don't believe in gods." is my claim.

My evidence is that I'm an atheist.

That's the only particular atheist claim I make.

Practically anything else you're asking is covered by science, not atheism.

No, your claim is "Christianity is a lie" (and not only, also Islam, Judaism and the other religions of the world) and that needs evidence. If you are calling someone a liar you should be based on something, right?

Yeah, and in this case it's based on the fact that a large body of people claims to know things with no way of showing that they're true, or any real effort to do so. It's a lie to claim to know something that can't be shown to be true. Knowing only pertains to that which is true.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I think, that what I find peculiar, is the way the term "anecdote" is being used here (almost as if being shoe horned in).  Perhaps I view evidence differently.  I see different kinds of evidence having different uses or strengths. I also do not think that evidence and reason is in the domain of science alone.  This may be dependent on the category of the topic one is dealing with.   Strength of evidence can vary, and is really dependent on how well the evidence speaks to uncovering the truth in question. 

A double blind study, with a large number of tests; I believe is very strong evidence.  Yet to demand this type of evidence above all other's even within science; is incorrect.   I don't see evolution or other historical studies in science doing double blind tests.   This is because double blind tests speaks to what is likely to occur in the future, and doesn't describe the past.  Similarly;  the results of such tests do not preclude an anomaly, or speak to the truthfulness or falsity of what happened previously.  It is a poor method of judgement in this manner.

What you guy's are calling "anecdotes" in legal terms, they call direct evidence.  It is called direct, because it speaks directly to what has occurred.  Most often the physical or forensic evidence is circumstantial.  It requires and inductive leap to connect the evidence to the case being made.   This is not to say, that direct evidence, is better or more preferred over circumstantial evidence.   It all depends on what the individual piece of evidence, can tell us, and overall, how all the evidence together works to paint a picture of what occurred. 

In mentioning "testimony of evidence", all I meant, was someone else telling us, what they found or observed.  I may have to rely on others, to tell me, about their scientific results (and reporting all the information accurately), the same as someone telling me, what they observed.

Also, to the poster, who wrote an anecdote, as evidence against anecdotes.   Your post was noticed and appreciated.

You know, I actually agree with almost every word of this. (The exception being that Double Blind studies, while providing exceptionally good evidence, are not applicable to anything that doesn't involve humans directly. The purpose of the Double Blind is to keep the tester from giving subconscious cues to the tested, thereby altering the results. If the tester does not know, he cannot give anything away. For most things involving the physical world, statistical and process analysis are used.) However, eyewitness testimony still remains incredibly weak evidence, as several scientific tests have shown. People can be mistaken, can misremember, can simply make things up with the best of intentions, for any number of reasons.

In the case of the Gospels, to which you're undoubtedly referring... 

You say George Washington was a real person, and really became the first President of the United States. He died on December 14, 1799... so we'll call it just before the year 1800. Yet nothing at all was written about him until 1820-1830, at the absolute earliest... and the oldest surviving copy we have of anything written about him is from the year 1950... with most of it being dated after the year 2000. Imagine if we found that, despite copious amounts of writing from that place and time, there was no one in Philadelphia (first US Capital) who wrote about a Mr. George Washington. But over time, a tradition began to grow up, telling us about this man and how he was President of the United States.

It's an incredible claim. Now, of course, we have a lot more knowledge about the man I mention, above... but hopefully, if all the evidence that existed for the man claimed in the story is the above, then by the year 4000, I hope some people would strongly doubt the claims of the Washingtians...especially if those claims tended to conflict with scientific knowledge about history and the universe. When you add in claims that George magically chopped down the cherry tree before telling the truth about it to his parents (rather than using an axe, I mean), you could expect people to get really weirded out by those who claimed it really happened that way.

Now I know this isn't a perfect analogy for claims about a living deity walking on earth, but it seems to me that if such were the case, and the miracles attested to in the Gospels/Acts were real, we'd have at least Roman letters reporting this fact... or that it went dark and there were earthquakes for several hours after some guy was crucified, or that the veil to the Holy of Holies in the temple was torn in half (would be a national scandal!), et cetera.

My point is (FINALLY!) (Yeah, yeah...) that if all you have are anecdotes, written down by secondhand (at best) listeners, then you have nothing that would constitute evidence. Even in a court of law, where some astoundingly bad evidence is nevertheless admitted (thus the frequency of wrongful convictions), this would be labeled as "hearsay" and would be inadmissible.

[robvalue]

I agree that each particular piece of evidence should be viewed on its own merits, and should be approached with an open mind.

However, trying to create extra validity in advance by overstating the importance of anecdotes is just as bad as writing them off before you hear them. Any particular piece of evidence is either convincing or it is not, to any specified examiner.

In the case of the bible especially, we've all seen it. There's no surprises. There are just people telling us "But it's great evidence!" No, it isn't. It's as unconvincing to anyone not part of the cult now as it was when they first saw it. Probably more so, because they've come to learn more about it and how absurd it is.

Telling us we're being unreasonable for not accepting the "evidence" is just an admission that you've got no cards left to play. I notice it's a common theist tactic to try and drag down the level of evidence required, and the level of evidence provided (in their estimation) by other things, to the level of the bible. What should be happening, is elevating the levels of evidence to meet what would usually be required.

This could work, if there was ever any new evidence. But all we've got are people resubmitting the same thing over and over. The jury has already seen it.

As for personal experiences... I'll gladly listen to anyone's. But if they've got nothing to demonstrate any of it happened, why exactly should I give it any weight?

People sometimes get very hung up on the idea of whether the person is lying or not. This is irrelevant. Lying or telling the truth is just about what you personally believe to be true, even about your own experiences. You can tell me "the truth" from your perspective, but that doesn't mean anything you say is actually objectively true. So focusing on motivations rather than evidence is a red herring.

[bennyboy]

. . . a red herring.

This is it. There's evidence which actually supports a proposition (like God is a real thing), and then there's a big song-and-dance to try and keep people from catching on to the fact that you don't have evidence which supports your proposition.

[robvalue]

Exactly right. What I don't get is what people hope to achieve by doing so.

The only realistic goal I can see is to make yourself feel better, by making sure you never get "shot down". But if you're trying to actually convince someone of something, you're just putting on an absurd display.