Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

See, if you had given evidence of me lying (not mistaken or you thinking I'm lying based on your false assuptions) I would have made a correction

Eyewitness testimony not good enough?

I wouldn't consider a vague claim, as witness testimony.  Witness testimony is about sharing what was seen, heard, or otherwise experienced (smells, touch... etc)  The judgement of that information is still up to the one who it is transmitted to. He didn't give any information, other than he thinks I'm a liar. The basis for that conclusion is yet un-evidenced. 

Of course, I was assuming that it was something in recent context and immediately pertinent as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, "vague claims" and written documents don't even cross the bar for you to consider a normal human being a run of the mill liar....but, for stories of resurrections and demon drivings...and murder....they're legit?

[JackRussell]

Testimony and time is also a factor.

An immediate report that I had lunch with my wife today can be investigated. The truth may never be revealed.
Older reports are even more troublesome, especially if only evidenced by the word or hearsay.

Why is this so difficult?

[RoadRunner79]

Are you saying, that if I have "my people " make the body disappear, that the numerous witnesses who had seen the body (police, doctors, and others), would have no evidence that there was even a crime?  I'll instruct them to burn down the hospital to make sure there is no physical evidence left behind.  People can even see them do it.  They can even tell them exactly why it is being done, and by whom.    If there is no physical evidence which ties back to them then they cannot convict me of either crime.  And best of all anybody who says that I did it, is irrational basing their opinion on the claims of alleged witnesses and hearsay?

Your scenario just gets more and more ludicrous, RR.  (Oh, and a burned-down hospital is physical evidence, you know.)

The critical difference between witnesses to your hypothetical crime and the alleged witnesses to scriptural events is that we can cross-examine living witnesses to see if there are consistencies and overall plausibility in their testimony.

Your scenario, as idiotic as it is becoming, still has not crossed into the realm of an extraordinary event.  Hospitals can burn.  Bodies can disappear.  Unlikely as it all is, it is at least physically possible.  This is why you're barking up the wrong tree with this whole thread -- You're trying to compare a possible real-life event with something that's vastly more likely to be mythology.

No I'm not trying to compare anything, and I'm not discussing extraordinary events. Just what was stated.   Perhaps you missed this, but I have mentioned this multiple times. 

And yes, witnesses to historical events, or sometimes events not that long ago, are not always available for cross examination.  Which doesn't apply to this hypothetical anyway. 

By the way, I was having a similar discussion with one of my guys who burnt down the hospital.  Who also doesn't believe that witness testimony is evidence.   To prove his point, he let a number of the witnesses know who he was, and even made some of them inspect his drivers license to ensure his identity.  The police questioned him, and he told them everything, including how it was done.  They where able to confirm the how, but couldn't link any forensic evidence back to us.  Do you think that we are still OK for the conviction?  They don't have any conclusive physical evidence, just very good witness testimony.

[The Grand Nudger]

It;s back and forth with you, isn;t it, a moment ago "vague claims" weren't enough, but now you make vague claims about not trying to compare something to anything..despite this thread having been an offshoot of precisely that, and of your having done exactly that in previous threads with these exact same shit for brains comments.

So, in this case, w're supposed to believe -your- vague protestations of honesty and innocence against all evidence to the contrary?  

I'm starting to see why you believe in fairy tales. "Something" broke your brains, bro.

[RoadRunner79]

It;s back and forth with you, isn;t it, a moment ago "vague claims" weren't enough, but now you make vague claims about not trying to compare something to anything..despite this thread having been an offshoot of precisely that, and of your having done exactly that in previous threads with these exact same shit for brains comments.

So, in this case, w're supposed to believe -your- vague protestations of honesty and innocence against all evidence to the contrary?  

Yes, it was something a different topic, that made me want to inquire to a more basic premise.  To get an idea of how people think.    So I started a new thread so we could focus on that and not disrupt the previous conversation (similar to what I have asked people to do here, when they want to discuss something apart from my intentions with this thread).   This has nothing to do with extraordinary claims, or trying to prove a particular event; that is not my goal here.  I'm at least attempting to (although I may have slipped) to not make any arguments or debate the issue.  I'm trying to not even disagree too much, mostly ask questions or answer them with a few comments when I find something interesting.  I don't see where I've been vague about any of this.  And I don't believe that there is any evidence (I am aware of), that I have tried to bring anything else up here.

You may consider that any correlation in comments, is due to testimony being discussed in both.   Not the other way around.  One has to do with the principle, and the other with the application.  If flows from the general to the specific.
I also have the feeling, that no matter what I say or do, it is going to change your faulty assumptions.

[The Grand Nudger]

The term assumption only applies when you have no previous history, where I must -assume- that jesus and the gospels are rattling around in your head.  I don;t have to do any such thing here, because you've already had this discussion with us on multiple occassions and it split off of a discussion of precisely that. Just fucking stop, man, lol? We know whats on your mind, we know why you ask now, why you asked then, we always know. We still have a conversation with you...so I can;t even see the practical upside to being disingenuous. You gain nothing and lose..well, I would say your credibility, everything..but?

So, this brings us round to another wonderful question regarding personal testimony.  When one bit of personal testimony contradicts many other bits of personal testimony allegedly written by or about a single person....what is the value of that testimony then? How are we to determine, on the basis of that testimony alone, what is true and what is false?

[RoadRunner79]

The term assumption only applies when you have no previous history, where I must -assume- that jesus and the gospels are rattling around in your head.  I don;t have to do any such thing here, because you've already had this discussion with us on multiple occassions and it split off of a discussion of precisely that.  Just fucking stop, man, lol?  We know whats on your mind, we know why you ask now, why you asked then, we always know.  We still have a conversation with you...so I can;t even see the practical upside to being disingenuous.  You gain nothing and lose..well, I would say your credibility, everything..but?  

So, this brings us round to another wonderful question regarding personal testimony.  When one bit of personal testimony contradicts many other bits of personal testimony allegedly written by or about a single person....what is the value of that testimony then?  How are we to determine, on the basis of that testimony alone, what is true and what is false?

I don't remember any other threads I was involved in, where the topic was only about testimony other than ones I started (although I could be wrong).  And I think that the history will show, that I do normally try to keep the thread on topic in most cases (sometimes I may join in as the thread has already veered off topic, or . 

Anyway, here is the first thread I started which was debating witness testimony.  https://atheistforums.org/thread-38852.html

And here is a related thread about anecdotal evidence which I started, which is somewhat related  https://atheistforums.org/thread-45573.html

You may look through them, for something more specific for you evidence if you like.   I think in the last one, I might have been ignoring you, and I'm beginning to remember why.

If you want to discuss the topic, or if you come up with something more specific to accuse me of... I'll be here  Otherwise I think that we are done.

[The Grand Nudger]

The topic seems to have turned to how you've been victimized, somehow.  Meanwhile, questions that apply to yourself, the gospels, and all personal testimony go unanswered.

[RoadRunner79]

---

So I did post this in another thread, but I thought that many might have tuned out in that, and I'm interested in getting a view of peoples opinions. Besides I never did a poll before, and thought in might be fun, as well as provide an option for those who don't want to comment.  I apologize in advance for those who like many options to a poll, but this is an excluded middle type of question (either A or Not A).


So a hypothetical question. A few of us, along with some strangers are sitting in a room (say 11 people in total) I'm trying to have a discussion with spmeone, and he just keeps calling me names, refuses to engage in anything, and just repeats back any accusation I make without even paying attention to the context. (you know the child's game of I know you are but what am I). I lose it, and hit him over the head with a chair, seriously injuring him (blind sided him of course). No one lets me leave, until the cops get there. Everyone gives slightly different accounts. Some seen the whole thing, some where distracted until the ruckus broke out. But everyone reports the same story, that I maliciously injured somebody. And their is no other evidence found, with which to specifically identify me as the culprit.

Is anyone seriously going to tell me, that they have no evidence with which to hold and convict me? That it's just one story against mine? If the nightly news didn't cover it, does that negate the others claims (after all what self respecting news reporter is going to air a story without evidence)? Do we need a scientist to duplicate the event in a lab in order to evidence the story? Do we need to find someone in the room that doesn't believe the claim, but corroborates it? Do their accounts need to include mundane details about who I am, like I fart on the bus and blame other people. Is the testimony of these 10 other people the claim or the evidence.


How would you honestly answer, This is only about this scenario, not considering anything else.

---

Also note, I'm not here to discuss or persuade anyone.  I'm interested in others opinions.  Comments welcome...preferably about the topic

---

I did vote yes, that I think that the testimony is evidence and enough for conviction.  It was specified in the OP, That there stories where a little different, but basically said the same thing.  Perhaps there is a little bit of an assumption that the testimony was good testimony, without any reason to doubt it (which I could have been clearer on). It was also indicated, that the person was held after the fact, so there is no issue of witnesses trying to identify someone they do not know after the fact.  

I don't think that because they are describing the same thing, that they are just one story retold in different ways. But multiple lines of independent evidence.  I don't think that if it didn't make the nightly news, that it effects the testimony the others.  History is not repeatable, so I don't think that it is a matter of science to evidence the story (although it may be able to add something, it is indirect).  I don't think that we need a person who doesn't believe the claim to chime in.  And I don't think that mundane details either about the witnesses or the one doing the assault aids, nor the lack of these type of details takes away from the account.  What is important is the event they are attesting to (here detail does matter, even in determining that they are in fact individual accounts).  I don't believe that this is the claim but what is observed is transferred information about what was seen and heard indicating that the proposition that I assaulted the man in this case is true.  If there was further evidence to the contrary, or reason to doubt, then that would be taken into account as well and could possibly outweigh the existing evidence.

---

The topic seems to have turned to how you've been victimized, somehow.  Meanwhile, questions that apply to yourself, the gospels, and all personal testimony go unanswered.

We are going to fix that and get back on topic....Bye bye, I wish you well.