Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[Minimalist]

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 would think your god could manage it.... if he existed.  Therein lies the rub.

[Ravenshire]

For me the question has never been if testimony can be accepted as evidence, but if it can be accepted as evidence on it's own.

[bennyboy]

Thoughts?

It comes down to an important point-- evidence must only be sufficient enough to convince people. If they are inclined to believe something, they will accept particularly weak and low-quality evidence. If you want to convince most people these days that a man in power abused his power to gain sexual favors-- this really isn't a hard sell.

A couple things should be pointed out, though:
1) Bitches will lie, and heads will roll. Now that there's real momentum in Hollywood, the witch hunt is properly on.
2) Convergence matters. When you get unrelated people with no clear motivation to independently agree on behaviors, then there is a sense of credibility here.
3) For the most part, it's not a criminal case. It is people getting called out on social media. The standards for evidence in the court of social media are almost zero.

If you said, "Hearsay is NEVER sufficient evidence," but you want to lock up men who have been accused by hearsay, then there's a conflict there. But if you consider sexual allegations highly likely, and the existence of a Judeo-Christian God highly UN-likely, then the Christians have the duty to meet whatever standard of evidence you hold FOR THAT IDEA, or they will fail to convince you, and you will not attend your church or put money on the donation plate.

---

For me the question has never been if testimony can be accepted as evidence, but if it can be accepted as evidence on it's own.

It's the same question in this case.  What evidence will there be for sexual assault that happened maybe a decade or more ago?

---

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.

The thing is, we have all observed plenty of inappropriate behavior by men, sometimes face-to-face; it's not a matter of whether this is possible, but only of WHO has done it.  We have not all observed plenty of things that can only be attributed to God; we are not in a position to say from experience, "Some Gods are definitely real, but we just have to figure out which ones."

If we already believed that many gods were probably real, then we'd very likely accept flimsy testimony: "Yeah, I saw Thor's hammer, and so did my sister!  He was waving it around in a hotel room after a coke party."

[Mystic]

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 would think your god could manage it.... if he existed.  Therein lies the rub.

You are right, God is capable of providing a clear proof and revealing a sufficient sign.  A lot people think God is incapable of proving the right path and religion, which is not at all true.

The degree it is hidden or manifest to a person is also in his hands.

[Minimalist]

But he hasn't.  Hence rub #2.

[Mystic]

But he hasn't.  Hence rub #2.

Minimalist, if he has not, how would you know by your attitude? And if he has, how would you know by your attitude?

[LadyForCamus]

Thoughts?

If you said, "Hearsay is NEVER sufficient evidence," but you want to lock up men who have been accused by hearsay, then there's a conflict there.

Yeah, I think I have made this mistake in the past.

---

For me the question has never been if testimony can be accepted as evidence, but if it can be accepted as evidence on it's own.

It's the same question in this case.  What evidence will there be for sexual assault that happened maybe a decade or more ago?

Right.  And as others have pointed out, we have facts and information surrounding the claim, but we don't have any direct evidence of the alleged crime itself.  There is no way we could for many of these cases. We're left to draw conclusions based on what little information we do have.  So, in Roy Moore's case, are we accepting a claim based on hearsay?  Or do we get to call that hearsay 'evidence' because it's all we have?  I mean, that's more or less what we're dealing with in his case, isn't it?  Hearsay about trolling the mall; "common knowledge" that he liked young girls, etc.  These  stories corroborate the testimony of the alleged victims (enhancing their credibility as witnesses, at least for me), but by the standard that I have put forth, they don't qualify as evidence.

[Minimalist]

But he hasn't.  Hence rub #2.

Minimalist, if he has not, how would you know by your attitude? And if he has, how would you know by your attitude?

Let the fucker prove himself, man.  I'm not some lunatic shit like you who falls for everything he reads in a silly old book.

Your holy horseshit is every bit as stupid as the crap that the jesus freaks peddle.  Deal with it.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

Yes, but having reasons for accepting the testimony beyond the testimony in and of itself requires that I make judgement calls and subjective evaluations of factors such as source and witness credibility, the personal/professional history of the accused, and my overall level of credulity for the accusation itself, taking context into account.  The testimony alone isn't evidence, but neither are these other reasons that I have concluded support it.  Are they?

[Amarok]

No we are not . Because some testimony could be accurate (with evident support ) does not mean dismissing others is hypocritical . How many times are we going to go over this . 

And no Neo and Steve have failed in every-way to make serious case for testimony as sole evidence .