Testimony is Evidence

[Astonished]

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?

Your reason is important because you're still clinging to this even though you've been proven wrong. This is like trying to fight your way through us to pull the switch on the electric chair to execute someone you still think is guilty even after we've proved they're not, you think that's not going to bother us and make us wonder what the hell is wrong with you that's making you still do this? And you claiming we've got no reasoning or evidence is you projecting your failures onto us, STOP IT, for fuck's sake, you're not fooling anyone and just revealing your own idiocy. You're the exact opposite of skeptical and we've proven that. Admit you're dead fucking wrong on at least one of these counts or just stop, this is fucking ridiculous.

[IAOALGIV]

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?

Your reason is important because you're still clinging to this even though you've been proven wrong. This is like trying to fight your way through us to pull the switch on the electric chair to execute someone you still think is guilty even after we've proved they're not, you think that's not going to bother us and make us wonder what the hell is wrong with you that's making you still do this? And you claiming we've got no reasoning or evidence is you projecting your failures onto us, STOP IT, for fuck's sake, you're not fooling anyone and just revealing your own idiocy. You're the exact opposite of skeptical and we've proven that. Admit you're dead fucking wrong on at least one of these counts or just stop, this is fucking ridiculous.

Is this seriously how you guys debate?

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL...skeptical...gee.......what does webster have to say on the subject?

skeptical
play
adjective
Definition of skeptical for English Language Learners

• : having or expressing doubt about something (such as a claim or statement)
  

It's almost as if the very term explicitly references a persons reluctance to accept the stories of others, or something......

Who told you that you were remotely skeptical, RR? Who's been fucking with you? You believe in a magic man who cast demons into pigs because you read it in a collection of bedtime stories.

[Astonished]

LOL...skeptical...gee.......what does webster have to say on the subject?

skeptical
play
adjective
Definition of skeptical for English Language Learners

• : having or expressing doubt about something (such as a claim or statement)
  

It's almost as if the very term explicitly references a persons reluctance to accept the stories of others, or something......

Who told you that you were remotely skeptical, RR?  Who's been fucking with you?

Being 'selectively' skeptical shouldn't count, I would think. And there's no caveat about evidence? That's a pretty shite definition.

[bennyboy]

I don't think that I understand where you disagree, with the etymology literal meaning of "bringing something into view"  or perhaps you are not disagreeing.   The modern dictionary definitions I gave, I would think match up with this (I believe) more figurative sourcing of the word.  Or are you saying to be evidence, that you need to literally bring it into the view of a person?  I would think from your examples, this is not the case.  In your example of a believed roman coin, I would agree, that a non-expert, can tell you what they seen, and why they think it is a roman coin.  An expert may be able to tell you more, or even be able to give information from the witness description if it is good enough.  

We can use whatever we want, or disregard whatever we want, as evidence. To some people, even hard science-- pictures, measurements, and so on, don't constitute evidence. To some, even the vaguest feelings, like hairs standing on end, are very clear evidence of ghosts or God.

I'm saying that evidence has to reveal the truth of something in a way that is not dependent on social interactions-- charisma, authority, appeal to numbers and so on.

I'm a little disappointed with you here.  My image of you, is of someone who thinks through things, and I would have thought that you might have given me the benefit of the doubt in doing the same, rather than jumped to imagined motivations, and where you think I'm trying to go with this.  I'm only looking to discuss testimony, as I find that many atheist seem to make strong objections, I find are unique to the group.  I may start thinking, that as much as they bring up God in the discussion, and avoid discussion, that it is more of an issue for them, then for me.   But also, I think that you are thinking of a different sense of the word testimony, sometimes used in the sense of a religious personal (not shared by others) experience.  I am not;  I'm talking about witness testimony as described above.  If testimony is evidence, it value as evidence, and the reasoning behind these views.

I think it's a little unusual for a religious person to come to an atheist site and repeatedly bring up the idea of the validity of testimony just for something to do. You may not be TALKING specifically about religious testimony, and have been careful not to. Nevertheless, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to read between the lines and guess that you have a reason for your interest in evidence that goes beyond simple jurisprudence.

If I ask my wife if it's sometimes okay for a man to cheat on his wife, or ask her to define what "cheating really means" to her, she's not going to start making bullet points for interest's sake. She's unlikely to take at face value that I just have an academic interest in coupled relationships. She's going to start checking my phone and waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Astonished
Meh, being selectively skeptical still counts as being skeptical.  Similarly, being skeptical -for no reason-...to hell with evidence, still counts as being skeptical.  

RR fits neither description of nominal skepticism.  RR is not a skeptic.  RR is stubbornly credulous, the very opposite of skepticism of any kind.

The whole point of this thread, and each identical thread before it.....on his end, is to argue -for- the stories people tell - hell or high water.

@Benny,
You ask your wife that, repeatedly, and yet you live? I'm skeptical. Maybe you shouldn't eat the soup, next time...you never know what she's put in it.

[bennyboy]

@Astonished
Meh, being selectively skeptical still counts as being skeptical.  Similarly, being skeptical -for no reason-...to hell with evidence, still counts as being skeptical.  

RR fits neither description of nominal skepticism.  RR is not a skeptic.  RR is stubbornly credulous, the very opposite of skepticism of any kind.

Nuh uh.  He's skeptical of your skepticism about the thing he claims he's not talking about.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure he is.  

[IAOALGIV]

Sure he is.  

What was your MOS if you don't mind me asking..?

[The Grand Nudger]

11b, 11c, 11h, 11m. When I outprocessed the computer told me that I was suitable for a career as infantry.
(those all got condensed into one MOS since I left, eh, 11"main-combatant")