If theists understood "evidence"

[Jehanne]

Some testimony is true, while other testimony is false, while other testimony is mistaken, which is why the courts adjudicate such things.

Do they use reason and arguments to do this, or is it more just feelings?

Of course, reasons and arguments, but, as we have all recently witnessed, feelings come into play, also!

[RoadRunner79]

Do they use reason and arguments to do this, or is it more just feelings?

Of course, reasons and arguments, but, as we have all recently witnessed, feelings come into play, also!

Well feelings are subjective. Do you put much weight in feelings? I see feelings as perhaps a need to look closer, or further investigate. However, I don't expect others to have the same feelings that I do, or to accept them. I think that you need a rational case to dismiss evidence.

[Jehanne]

Of course, reasons and arguments, but, as we have all recently witnessed, feelings come into play, also!

Well feelings are subjective.   Do you put much weight in feelings?  I see feelings as perhaps a need to look closer, or further investigate.   However, I don't expect others to have the same feelings that I do, or to accept them.   I think that you need a rational case to dismiss evidence.

I don't think that the Gospels or Paul constitute "evidence".  I've asked you about this before, as to why I should accept the Gospel of Matthew but not the Gospel of Peter?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This seems like the same response I have gotten when asking similar questions of atheists claims that theists just need to be educated or lack critical thinking .   It's appears (to me) to be nothing more than sophism, and a way to disparage others, without any real solid backing or reason for the claim.   As usual, the result is just senseless attacks on Christianity, with nothing to support it.   I wonder if that fits under the prime directive rule?

There’s nothing senseless in attacking Christianity. It’s an idea like everything else, so as a result is (and should be) subject to criticism and critiques. Beliefs aren’t sacred.

So no. Any attempt to make a belief subject to PD will be given a physical turd by me to hold whilst they contribute to the forum.

I for one don’t think it’s a lack of critical thinking or lack of education or intelligence. What I do think is that often it’s a cognitive dissonance. People are sceptical (usually) of claims made by people in most instances (such as a stranger asking you to give her $100 to double your money in a week! But you just have to believe that she’ll do it.). This same scepticism doesn’t appear to extend to extraordinary religious claims, though.

[LadyForCamus]

There can’t be evidence of the supernatural, because once something becomes evident in the world, it falls under the purview of science, and is therefore natural.

[Minimalist]

What YOU do not understand - intentionally, I suspect since you are not stupid - is that a bald assertion is not "evidence."  There's a line in an old book!  It must be true!  Unless it's a book written by someone you don't already worship. Homer writes that Poseidon blew Odysseus out to sea?  Well, that can't be true but if some unknown shlepper writes that "jesus" healed a cripple you fall on your face and insist THAT happened.  And worst of all, YOU don't get it and probably never will because your delusion is so willful.

"Evidence" must be examined.  That is where all religious bullshit fails.  Face value counts for exactly nothing.

Oh yes.... witness testimony is not evidence.
So then.... set Bill Cosby FREEE!!!!   We also seemed to have shown, that is not the case recently, or are you saying that the democrats had no reason to cite delay and to not confirm Kavenaugh?

As well, witness testimony is used in historical research, and in criminal trials all the time.   Atheists just seem to have double standards when it comes to things that don't fit their narrative.

Once again, asshole, testimony must be cross-examined.  In case you missed it, a lying, drunken, scumbag is now on the supreme court because the testimony of the accuser was not cross-examined and neither was his.

Produce your fucking witnesses and let's have at them!  Your silly-assed "paul" contradicts himself so much that a first year law student with  D average could rip him a new asshole on the stand.

[RoadRunner79]

Well feelings are subjective.   Do you put much weight in feelings?  I see feelings as perhaps a need to look closer, or further investigate.   However, I don't expect others to have the same feelings that I do, or to accept them.   I think that you need a rational case to dismiss evidence.

I don't think that the Gospels or Paul constitute "evidence".  I've asked you about this before, as to why I should accept the Gospel of Matthew but not the Gospel of Peter?

I've answered before.   I think that we both agree, that it was written late.  It's not even considered among those closest to the accounts of Jesus in the Early Church.  Our earliest references to it (~200 AD); are condemning it as a forgery not from Peter, suggest not to read it to congregations and that it contains Docetism which did not fit with what they heard from the apostles.  If my memory is correct, then we had very little knowledge of it, because a copy was not found until quite recently of which the earliest copy is ~ 8 - 9th century.  

Do you have reason that you think it should be accepted?

---

Oh yes.... witness testimony is not evidence.
So then.... set Bill Cosby FREEE!!!!   We also seemed to have shown, that is not the case recently, or are you saying that the democrats had no reason to cite delay and to not confirm Kavenaugh?

As well, witness testimony is used in historical research, and in criminal trials all the time.   Atheists just seem to have double standards when it comes to things that don't fit their narrative.

Once again, asshole, testimony must be cross-examined.  In case you missed it, a lying, drunken, scumbag is now on the supreme court because the testimony of the accuser was not cross-examined and neither was his.

Produce your fucking witnesses and let's have at them!  Your silly-assed "paul" contradicts himself so much that a first year law student with  D average could rip him a new asshole on the stand.

If you think that historians demand/expect  to personally cross-examine witnesses from 2000 years ago; then you are more delusional than I thought.  This would also mean that you discount most of history.   I notice that when you are trying to make a case against Christianity, that you hold different standards though.  Why is that?

Also Dr. Ford was cross examined (although I think they handled her with kid gloves) by the senate; so was Judge Kavenaugh.

[Ravenshire]

Of course it is - but poor evidence. On it's own it rarely is enough to be used alone in criminal court to convict. Sadly, unless of course your skin is dark. Then it seems to be more weighty.

Well then, if the best you have is poor evidence, then set the Pudding man free!


Also, I have posted before, but you can easily google, and find many lawyers who will disagree with you.  If you only have a single witness, it may be a little dicey, but even then it can still convict, and is still given as evidence.  I only see this claim from atheists... I wonder why that is?

You're either forgetting or straight up lying about this as I have given you evidence that even judges are coming to question the validity of testimony as evidence except when it's corroborating physical evidence

[RoadRunner79]

This seems like the same response I have gotten when asking similar questions of atheists claims that theists just need to be educated or lack critical thinking .   It's appears (to me) to be nothing more than sophism, and a way to disparage others, without any real solid backing or reason for the claim.   As usual, the result is just senseless attacks on Christianity, with nothing to support it.   I wonder if that fits under the prime directive rule?

There’s nothing senseless in attacking Christianity. It’s an idea like everything else, so as a result is (and should be) subject to criticism and critiques. Beliefs aren’t sacred.

So no. Any attempt to make a belief subject to PD will be given a physical turd by me to hold whilst they contribute to the forum.

I for one don’t think it’s a lack of critical thinking or lack of education or intelligence. What I do think is that often it’s a cognitive dissonance. People are sceptical (usually) of claims made by people in most instances (such as a stranger asking you to give her $100 to double your money in a week! But you just have to believe that she’ll do it.). This same scepticism doesn’t appear to extend to extraordinary religious claims, though.

Reasonable criticism and critique.  Sure! I think that Christianity has certainly been and should be investigated.   However; double standards and hyper-skepticism no.

Also, I wouldn't recommend your approach described either.

---

Well then, if the best you have is poor evidence, then set the Pudding man free!


Also, I have posted before, but you can easily google, and find many lawyers who will disagree with you.  If you only have a single witness, it may be a little dicey, but even then it can still convict, and is still given as evidence.  I only see this claim from atheists... I wonder why that is?

You're either forgetting or straight up lying about this as I have given you evidence that even judges are coming to question the validity of testimony as evidence except when it's corroborating physical evidence

No lying.... they still do accept testimony as evidence.
And while I agree, with teaching people of some of the issues of witness testiomony (such as identifying a suspect you do not know, or misleading memories because of questioning), I think that this is mostly an over-reaction by some extreme people.   In any case, as we recently seen in the Kavenaugh hearing, even atheists will put a lot of weight behind even a single account of testimony evidence.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There’s nothing senseless in attacking Christianity. It’s an idea like everything else, so as a result is (and should be) subject to criticism and critiques. Beliefs aren’t sacred.

So no. Any attempt to make a belief subject to PD will be given a physical turd by me to hold whilst they contribute to the forum.

I for one don’t think it’s a lack of critical thinking or lack of education or intelligence. What I do think is that often it’s a cognitive dissonance. People are sceptical (usually) of claims made by people in most instances (such as a stranger asking you to give her $100 to double your money in a week! But you just have to believe that she’ll do it.). This same scepticism doesn’t appear to extend to extraordinary religious claims, though.

Reasonable criticism and critique.  Sure! I think that Christianity has certainly been and should be investigated.   However; double standards and hyper-skepticism no.

Also, I wouldn't recommend your approach described either.

Diddums. You’re not in a position, either here or real life, to dictate to people how you think your beliefs should be viewed and criticised, or indeed carve out what you think is ‘reasonable’. Not unless you want to live a society entirely comprised of you. If that floats your boat, then feel free to set sail.

Also, hyper skepticism.