Testimony is Evidence

[Losty]

I testify that Lady and Jack want to make out in my lap so bad.

[Minimalist]

Again with this?  Has something changed since last time?  Wait, wait..let me check.  

Nope.

What other choice does he have?

[KevinM1]

I testify that Lady and Jack want to make out in my lap so bad.

I testify that I wanna watch....

[Amarok]

I testify that I am the reincarnation of Jimmy Hendrix .

[The Grand Nudger]

The choice made by countless other believers.  The dignity of faith.  It's not as if all of the afflicted prattle on endlessly about testimony being evidence... is it?  

That's a choice RR makes, over..and over...and over....and over.......it's almost as if his beliefs are hanging by a fucking thread.

[J a c k]

I testify that Lady and Jack want to make out in my lap so bad.

If the lady mod speaketh, I believeth.

[Ravenshire]

How 'bout answering the question I put to you, in bold and italicized? All you've done so far is yet more spinning for the strengths of testimony in the face of physical evidence to the contrary.

[RoadRunner79]

We all know that RR is full of shit.

What do you suppose RR will make of this "eye-witness testimony?"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...1348,020:7

Vespasian, the new emperor, having been raised unexpectedly from a low estate, wanted something which might clothe him with divine majesty and authority. This, likewise, was now added. A poor man who was blind, and another who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal, imploring him to heal them,3 and saying that they were admonished in a dream by the god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel. At first he could scarcely believe that the thing would any how succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases.

Did Titus Flavius Vespasianus pull off these healing miracles, RR?  If not, why not? 
Caius Suetonius Tranquillus.

I would need to check it out more. Is there corroborating evidence? Is this something he is claiming to have seen, or what is the context of it? Why do you think I should believe it or why do think I should not?

[Astonished]

So were doing this again . Are you a masochist road ?

Wheren't you one of those who was criticizing me for not discussing?  
But if you have something to add, or think part of what I said is incorrect...let's here it.

No, we were criticizing you for being a coward and challenging us to do this when you're the only one who thinks this or cares enough to continue trying to defend this position.

How about this:

Person A makes an assertion. When asked how they know this, they say because person B says it's true. When person B is asked how they know what they said is true, they say person C verified its accuracy. Person C's reply leads to person D's testimony as its only source. See where I'm going with this? This is a two-fold dilemma. Not only can the word of a person not be sufficient to verify the word of another person, but there's no mechanism by which to verify whether any of them are correct independent of their assertions. This is an entirely circular process and adds no reliability or accuracy whatsoever. Since you seemed so keen on removing other evidence from the situation before, this renders YOUR assertion false.

Add to this the myriad reasons why a person's memory, perceptions, motivations, biases, etc., are reason to suspect their testimony is unreliable, and you've got a recipe for the worst sort of justification to believe anything. If you want to consider this evidence, by all means, go ahead and die choking on snake oil intended to make your pants happier after you drain your bank account to buy it from the schizophrenic homeless guy on the street corner. Because that's where your opinion on this would lead. Zero discretion here is all you get unless you dismiss this. Even in conjunction with evidence, at best it's unreliable because of all the aforementioned problems with human psychology. Even in a situation where something is 99% certain, this could never be used to push it up to 100%.

You want to keep making a big deal out of the stupidest thing you can, by all means, go ahead. But you know what you'll be doing? Ignoring ACTUAL EVIDENCE in favor of your preferred belief. Exactly the kind of thing that lets us know you're completely full of shit. Exactly the kind of thing you're trying to claim you're not doing, or are justified in doing. Doesn't work that way, kiddo. Your failure to understand this is the trouble here.

[RoadRunner79]

How 'bout answering the question I put to you, in bold and italicized? All you've done so far is yet more spinning for the strengths of testimony in the face of physical evidence to the contrary.

As I said, I think it is an odd position which I have only seen in this extreme view from atheist groups. So I wanted to look at the reasons for it and if it is justified. I wanted to discuss it. From the other thread, which I did not intend for debate, others seemed to want to discuss it, and criticized me for not discussing it there, even though I told them to make a thread. Now, it seems that most don't want to discuss it, and are questioning me for doing so.

Why is my reason important to you? Do you want me to just accept your claims without reasoning or evidence? Can I not be skeptical?