Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[Neo-Scholastic]

As Steve and Neo have explained, testimony IS evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence, and it isnt necessarily proof... but it is considered evidence nonetheless.

And I have explained why, despite legalistic definitions, testimony is NOT evidence. It isn't evidence of anything but that the person giving it is claims a particular thing. The evidence part is what is used to determine whether their claim is credible enough to justify finding someone guilty or not guilty, as the case may be.

Evidence simply means "that which is evident." The gospel writers testified to their actual experiences...evidently.

[Whateverist]

Of course one man's evidence is another mans cup of slush.

[SteveII]

As Steve and Neo have explained, testimony IS evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence, and it isnt necessarily proof... but it is considered evidence nonetheless.

And I have explained why, despite legalistic definitions, testimony is NOT evidence. It isn't evidence of anything but that the person giving it claims a particular thing. The evidence part is what is used to determine whether their claim is credible enough to justify finding someone guilty or not guilty, as the case may be.

You think 'evidence' is a synonym of 'fact'. But the definition of evidence is facts or information... Someone saying they were sexually assaulted is information by any standard. 

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   

[Edwardo Piet]

And you think 'soundness' is a synonym of 'validity' . . .

And I see nothing in Mister Agenda's post that suggests he thinks 'evidence' is a synonym of 'fact'. Looks to me more like he thinks that 'evidence' is a synonym of 'valid evidence' . . . and it is.

[Amarok]

Sound does not mean true . And your idea's are not even sound .

[Ravenshire]

And I have explained why, despite legalistic definitions, testimony is NOT evidence. It isn't evidence of anything but that the person giving it is claims a particular thing. The evidence part is what is used to determine whether their claim is credible enough to justify finding someone guilty or not guilty, as the case may be.

Evidence simply means "that which is evident." The gospel writers testified to their actual experiences...evidently.

That you accept the meanderings of pseudonymous authors taking down hearsay accounts decades after the alleged events says more about your credulity than it does about testimony being good evidence.

[Amarok]

And not even good Authors .Let alone good Chroniclers, Historians ,  Or even fucking theologians . Who were despite the desperate pleading of theist less then honest .

[Fireball]

And I have explained why, despite legalistic definitions, testimony is NOT evidence. It isn't evidence of anything but that the person giving it is claims a particular thing. The evidence part is what is used to determine whether their claim is credible enough to justify finding someone guilty or not guilty, as the case may be.

Evidence simply means "that which is evident." The gospel writers testified to their actual experiences...evidently.

You're giving those writers of their current-day fiction a lot of cred with that statement. I know a guy who went and bought a red caftan at a resale store and went around acting like a religious person, to the point of making prophecies. People ended up following him in the streets to see what he had to say. He made up a prophecy for a woman about how some of her relatives were going to die. She got all kinds of upset, and (since he's an atheist) he felt badly and told her he was making the whole thing up. She got angry because he was backing off "only to make her not feel badly about that prediction", which as far as she was concerned, was true. The only difference between what happened with this guy and your belief is that you are separated by many centuries from the pretenders by other suckers who bought into it.

[Minimalist]

Evidence simply means "that which is evident." The gospel writers testified to their actual experiences...evidently.

That you accept the meanderings of pseudonymous authors taking down hearsay accounts decades after the alleged events says more about your credulity than it does about testimony being good evidence.

He accepts what he wants to accept.  It is a major failing of theists.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Interesting thought....in the case of a Christian saying "God came and said this to me" there is no harm made to anyone if we believe or don't believe it, it will regardless be believed by that person....
Rape accusations on the other hand are very serious. In the absence of evidence with people I know nothing of I feel I have a moral obligation to not draw any assumptions.