Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Effective Altruism
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAh, so it was an informal argumentum ad populum fallacy! Gotcha!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostOh, that's a real knee slapper. No, no. It wasn't an informal argument either. Maybe if you don't know what a logical fallacy is, you shouldn't throw around the accusation. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open yer yap, and all that.
Now why don't you address the issue rather than trying to find fault with your interlocutor, which is all you seem to do. .“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostArgumentum ad populum fallacy!
More to the point, those who have experienced Australia can provide objective evidence of its existence whereas those who claim to have experienced the divine cannot provide objective evidence of their alleged experience.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostPlease go to my other thread, http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=australianism, and provide such objective evidence for this Australia.
My argument was that personal testimony of a purely subjective experience, e.g. alien abduction or a mystical divine experience, cannot be verified without substantiated supportive evidence. Conversely, the the existence of the continent of Australia can be substantiated by supportive evidenceLast edited by Tassman; 03-22-2017, 10:57 PM.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYou are (typically) misrepresenting the facts of the argument...you ought to be Trump's spin doctor. He needs you.
My argument was that personal testimony of a purely subjective experience, e.g. alien abduction or a mystical divine experience, cannot be verified without substantiated supportive evidence. Conversely, the the existence of the continent of Australia can be substantiated by supportive evidence
You don't think people can find ways to ignore any evidence they don't want to accept? You don't accept eye witness testimony for religion. You also won't accept reports of miracles, prophesies, the evidence of the world around you, and you would find a way to deny God even if he sent you a video tape of himself. Or if he appeared in front of you. You would claim it was a hoax, or a trick, or you had a stroke. If you don't want to believe something then you won't. And you don't. So don't go around pretending to be open-minded and just not having enough evidence. The fact is nothing would be enough evidence for you because you are close-minded on the topic. You have your mind made up and nothing will change it. You can always find an excuse to reject any evidence provided to you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou really don't get it do you?
Personal testimony is accepted unless it can be proven to be unreliable. It is defacto accepted as true unless shown otherwise. That is how the courts work.
Personal testimony was considered neither true nor false, but as something that may be either true or false, reliable or unreliable. It is rarely the substantive evidence - that would typically be forensic or documentary, and for the cases I was juror consisted of physical exhibits and interview transcripts.
In most respects the personal testimonies as regards the facts of the case were agreed by both parties, and it was the motives and level of awareness of those facts that were under dispute. The witnesses' testimonies thereon were certainly not accepted as true unless shown otherwise.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostIt wasn't how the court worked when I served on a jury.
Personal testimony was considered neither true nor false, but as something that may be either true or false, reliable or unreliable. It is rarely the substantive evidence - that would typically be forensic or documentary, and for the cases I was juror consisted of physical exhibits and interview transcripts.
In most respects the personal testimonies as regards the facts of the case were agreed by both parties, and it was the motives and level of awareness of those facts that were under dispute. The witnesses' testimonies thereon were certainly not accepted as true unless shown otherwise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWas it accepted as evidence that the jury would evaluate along with all of the other evidence in the case? Yes, it was. I never said you had to believe it, or that the Jury had to believe it. I said it was considered reliable evidence in a case unless the witness could be compromised and shown in court to be perjuring themselves at which time the testimony would be thrown out. As far as the court is concerned if it is accepted as evidence then it is not false and it true. It is up to the jury whether to believe it or not.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post“Personal testimony” is considered neutral unless it can be supported by substantive, credible evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWas it accepted as evidence that the jury would evaluate along with all of the other evidence in the case? Yes, it was. I never said you had to believe it, or that the Jury had to believe it. I said it was considered reliable evidence in a case unless the witness could be compromised and shown in court to be perjuring themselves at which time the testimony would be thrown out.As far as the court is concerned if it is accepted as evidence then it is not false and it true.It is up to the jury whether to believe it or not.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIf you have two or more eye witnesses that say the defendant caused the dent, guess who gets believed?Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostWhat you actually said was that "It is defacto accepted as true unless shown otherwise." That wasn't the case. As far as the court is concerned it is evidence that may be false and may be true. They do not accept witness testimony as true unless proven otherwise, or as false until proven otherwise, they accept is as having unknown veracity and, as you say,
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
204 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Comment