Evidence for atheist claims

[robvalue]

I'd like to raise another point regarding trying to compare anecdotes used in court, and anecdotes of a supernatural nature.

This is a hopelessly flawed comparison. There is a very clear limit regarding what would ever be accepted as "evidence" in any sane courtroom. That limit is that it must involve things we already know about and understand. It cannot contain ghosts, gods, sentient fireballs or angels.

We know that the above type of evidence, even with that limit applied, is very unreliable. It is only ever (properly) used as supporting evidence for a decision in court.

But now consider an anecdote that involves something we don't yet understand well, like an angel say. We're faced with even more problems:

1) We are relying on them telling the truth.
2) We are relying on them accurately recalling what happened.
3) We are relying on them accurately identifying and categorizing phenomena previously unknown to science.

This third part alone makes the whole thing a total joke. Absolutely no one has the authority or credibility to do this, in my estimation. At the very best, we have an unexplained/unknown phenomenon being described. The fact that many different anecdotes happen to use the same word/vague description of things like angels does not make it credible. It just means we have lots of people getting well above their station in terms of what they can accurately identify, and are referencing popular mythology.

[Little Rik]

I'd like to raise another point regarding trying to compare anecdotes used in court, and anecdotes of a supernatural nature.

This is a hopelessly flawed comparison. There is a very clear limit regarding what would ever be accepted as "evidence" in any sane courtroom. That limit is that it must involve things we already know about and understand. It cannot contain ghosts, gods, sentient fireballs or angels.

We know that the above type of evidence, even with that limit applied, is very unreliable. It is only ever (properly) used as supporting evidence for a decision in court.

But now consider an anecdote that involves something we don't yet understand well, like an angel say. We're faced with even more problems:

1) We are relying on them telling the truth.
2) We are relying on them accurately recalling what happened.
3) We are relying on them accurately identifying and categorizing phenomena previously unknown to science.

This third part alone makes the whole thing a total joke. Absolutely no one has the authority or credibility to do this, in my estimation. At the very best, we have an unexplained/unknown phenomenon being described. The fact that many different anecdotes happen to use the same word/vague description of things like angels does not make it credible. It just means we have lots of people getting well above their station in terms of what they can accurately identify, and are referencing popular mythology.

Rob.  
You are an absolute joke.
You remind me that guy that was waiting to buy his own house until the prices would come down to the
level that would suit him.
It never happen.  
The prices keep on going up and up and the poor chap got old while renting wasting in this way all his money.
Actually in some places the prices go down where the people for different reasons abandon the houses and the place become a ghost town.
Even in that case it would be a disaster anyway.
Atheism act in the same way.
People wait for the MANNA falling from the sky.
In that case they would have the evidence that something is real.
But the Manna never fall down.
You got to take a step forward and take a bit of risk sometime.
Life is all about moving forward.
If you don't you lose.  

[LadyForCamus]

My manna falls from the sky all the time!!! I catch it in a rain bucket, mix it with Southern Comfort, and pour over ice. Yum! [emoji481][emoji485][emoji898]

[KevinM1]

It's nice to see that Rik's understanding of real estate is just as flawed as everything else.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'd like to raise another point regarding trying to compare anecdotes used in court, and anecdotes of a supernatural nature.

This is a hopelessly flawed comparison. There is a very clear limit regarding what would ever be accepted as "evidence" in any sane courtroom. That limit is that it must involve things we already know about and understand. It cannot contain ghosts, gods, sentient fireballs or angels.

We know that the above type of evidence, even with that limit applied, is very unreliable. It is only ever (properly) used as supporting evidence for a decision in court.

But now consider an anecdote that involves something we don't yet understand well, like an angel say. We're faced with even more problems:

1) We are relying on them telling the truth.
2) We are relying on them accurately recalling what happened.
3) We are relying on them accurately identifying and categorizing phenomena previously unknown to science.

This third part alone makes the whole thing a total joke. Absolutely no one has the authority or credibility to do this, in my estimation. At the very best, we have an unexplained/unknown phenomenon being described. The fact that many different anecdotes happen to use the same word/vague description of things like angels does not make it credible. It just means we have lots of people getting well above their station in terms of what they can accurately identify, and are referencing popular mythology.

Rob.  
You are an absolute joke.
You remind me that guy that was waiting to buy his own house until the prices would come down to the
level that would suit him.
It never happen.  
The prices keep on going up and up and the poor chap got old while renting wasting in this way all his money.
Actually in some places the prices go down where the people for different reasons abandon the houses and the place become a ghost town.
Even in that case it would be a disaster anyway.
Atheism act in the same way.
People wait for the MANNA falling from the sky.
In that case they would have the evidence that something is real.
But the Manna never fall down.
You got to take a step forward and take a bit of risk sometime.
Life is all about moving forward.
If you don't you lose.  

You miss rob's point by a wide, wide margin.

Let's take the court testimony analogy a little further. You are in court accused of robbery and I am a witness against you. Which of the following statements is more likely to be accepted by the court?:

1. 'I saw the accused enter the shop at about noon of the day in question. He was wearing jeans and a blue t-shirt. He was in the shop for only a minute or two. I heard what sounded like a gunshot, and the accused came running out carrying a paper sack and a pistol.'

2. 'I saw the accused materialize out of thin air in front of the shop at about noon on the day in question. He was wearing a shiny silver helmet and was dressed in a gold lame jumpsuit. He used what looked like a Klingon disruptor pistol to blast through the door, but Wolverine came rushing out - claws extended - at which point the accused activated his jetpack and zoomed to safety.'

Boru

[Whateverist]

Pearls to swine, Rob. Pigs never know what to do with them.

But I appreciated the way Rik tried to create a sense of common feeling with you in his attempt at an answer. He welcomed you as a brother in jokedom.

[robvalue]

It seems he randomly picks one word that I used out of my whole post, and writes an essay around how he imagines I might have used the word.

[Whateverist]

Well, you do realize that he knows both the question you really have in mind and its answer, don't you.  He could probably guess and answer your question without even that one word as a clue.

[Homeless Nutter]

It seems he randomly picks one word that I used out of my whole post, and writes an essay around how he imagines I might have used the word.

Hmmm... You seem surprised by that. Is this your first encounter with Rik?

[Cyberman]

It's nice to see that Rik's understanding of real estate is just as flawed as everything else.

It's the word "real" that's causing him problems.