Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[Homeless Nutter]

If a thousand women (or men, whatever) came out and claimed to have been raped by Loch Ness monster - I'd be as sceptical as I am of most religious claims and I'd be looking for more believable explanations. On the other hand - if a theist says, that the mention of the word "god" makes his/her rectum tingle - I see no reason to question their testimony. In any situation, it's all about the probability of the claim and the availability of supporting evidence, so yeah - context.

It just so happens theists tend to make outlandish, self-serving claims and have never presented a shred of credible evidence for those. At this point I don't see a single reason to continue to humor them.

[brewer]

To be honest I've not looked into the individual testimonies of any of these women. On the whole I'm inclined to believe them, just based on numbers. 

Before I'd believe each individual case, I'd need a lot more details (or bother to read the details that are out there). Times, dates, other witnesses, ancillary details, .......... Probably like to hear something akin to a deposition where their testimony is open to question/scrutiny. 

Just two examples out there, Tawana Brawley, the Duke Lacrosse Team. 

And as so many have pointed out this can not be compared to testimony regarding the supernatural.

[LadyForCamus]

And as so many have pointed out this can not be compared to testimony regarding the supernatural.

No, of course it cannot.  But, I think I've been a little rough on RR and Steve in past discussions regarding testimony of the natural world, because I was assuming that they would conflate natural claims with supernatural claims the second they thought they had testimony through the door as evidence. Just calling myself out on my shit, is all. 😝

[Minimalist]

Those two deserve it.

[Edwardo Piet]

The thing is LFC, if you believe these women's testimony just cause they say so, then you'd be wrong. In this case there are a whole bunch of other factors supporting their case and that's why I believe them. An unverified testimony is nothing more than a claim.

Yes, this exactly what I'm trying to say (and apparently doing a poor job of it, lol).  Context matters.  Facts about the people involved matter.  Every detail helps paint a little bit of the big picture so that we can draw reasonable conclusions.  But, I think I've asserted otherwise in the past. I just want to make sure I'm being intellectually honest on the subject. Perhaps I'm making a mistake in thinking that an accusation of rape is more than mundane.  I suppose rape is mundane in that we know it happens, and it happens all the time.

So I think the conclusion is that testimony in and of itself is not evidence. Because you believe the testimony of these women not simply because they made allegations but for more than that.

[brewer]

And as so many have pointed out this can not be compared to testimony regarding the supernatural.

No, of course it cannot.  But, I think I've been a little rough on RR and Steve in past discussions regarding testimony of the natural world, because I was assuming that they would conflate natural claims with supernatural claims the second they thought they had testimony through the door as evidence. Just calling myself out on my shit, is all. 😝

Yeah, I'm with ya. I questioned their motives, with good reason.

[Edwardo Piet]

To stop natural and supernatural claims being conflated I'll spell it out for them:

a supernatural claim is a claim which by definition there can't be any evidence for

We live in the natural world so we can't detect any evidence for the world outside of that.

It's exactly like how we live in the world of phenomena so noumena (Kant's das Ding an sich) is by definition impossible to experience.

[vorlon13]

As I noted elsewhere in regards to Reagan's Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas:

If Anita Hill is lying, what's in it for her? Pariah status

If Clarence Thomas is lying what's in it for him? A seat on the US Supreme Court.


I'm calling that 'perspective'.

[Neo-Scholastic]

With respect to the OP, the issue largely comes up with respect to NT reliability. The point generally made by believers is that skeptics have ruled out the supernatural in advance or at least raised the burden of proof to an unobtainable level. As such the very nature of the thing we are trying to prove serves as the reason given for not accepting evidence of it. It's a no win situation.

[LastPoet]

With respect to the OP, the issue largely comes up with respect to NT reliability. The pointgenerally made by believers is that skeptic have ruled out the supernatural  in advance or at least raised the burden of proof to an unobtainable level. As such the very nature of the thing we are trying to prove serves as the reason given for not accepting evidence of it. It's a no win situation.

I guess so. And while you keep your fantasies to yourself and let the rest of us live in the natural world we can grasp, you have removed yourself from concrete discussion. While you can live in a world of concocting philosophies, everybody else lives in reality.

It is a no win situation beause you can't create gods out of your imagination, as much you wish it. Those gods you might believe aren't even congruent.

You should try like saint Antony and preach that half arsed bullshit to the fish. Otherwise, you are at the end of your wits, like many in the face of the horrid real world we all have to live in.

All your book testifies is, the gullibility of the common folk. those that are not just waste the pursuit for bullshit and pretend to do nything of worth.