The curious case of the atheist detective

[lejend]

[deleted_user0]

I saw God yesterday and he told me Lejend isn't a real Christian.

[lejend]

Not an argument.

[Laurence Drake]

Not an argument.

phpBB [video]

[pecelot]

that scared the shit out of me despite it definitely shouldn't

[Jam]

Not an argument.

Nah God said the same thing to me, so that's testimony from two people now. Things aren't looking too good for you Smith.

[deleted_user]

When I joined staff I told them I'd rein in muh more brazen comments but this is one of the dumbest things I've seen on this website even coming from you.

[lejend]

Not an argument.

Nah God said the same thing to me, so that's testimony from two people now. Things aren't looking too good for you Smith.

So is testimony evidence or not? Be consistent.

When I joined staff I told them I'd rein in muh more brazen comments but this is one of the dumbest things I've seen on this website even coming from you.

Can you articulate why it is wrong?

[deleted_user]

No I'm actually quite poor at articulating

[Jam]

Not an argument.

Nah God said the same thing to me, so that's testimony from two people now. Things aren't looking too good for you Smith.

So is testimony evidence or not? Be consistent.

My testimony is evidence, your testimony isn't.

[lejend]

How so?

[Jam]

ur stopid and i'm special

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is held by Jam.

Testimony: a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given by Jam.

[lejend]

You're being intellectually unserious.

[Jam]

It is impossible for human beings to know objective truth about morality or the nature of reality, only if there were a perfect being with perfect knowledge could there be answers to these questions. Well here I am my son. You were once a good follower of my teachings, but lately you have lost your way. You have failed many tests that I have laid out for you in your life, but there is yet time to redeem yourself. You must let go of the anger inside your soul or it will not be allowed to enter heaven. I know that you can do this, just as you have always believed in me so I believe in you too.

[lejend]

The first part is true but then it got creepy.

[deleted_user0]

Not an argument.

No it's an anecdote, just like your story. But mine is true, and yours is just a fable.

[deleted_user0]

Not an argument.

Nah God said the same thing to me, so that's testimony from two people now. Things aren't looking too good for you Smith.

So is testimony evidence or not? Be consistent.

When I joined staff I told them I'd rein in muh more brazen comments but this is one of the dumbest things I've seen on this website even coming from you.

Can you articulate why it is wrong?

Tell me where either of us claimed it was or it wasn't? Provide proof please.

[Gendarme]

It is stupid because you use a stupid example to make your point - although it is obviously meant to mostly have comedic value. In a more serious example Smith would deny any wrongdoing. Now it is no longer obvious whether Smith is a murderer or not - further investigation is needed.

In your example there is a confession to crime which exposes the criminal, but is stupidly ignored by the policeman. Then, even more stupidly, it is implied that any statement that incriminates Smith is valid because we know he is a criminal, and this proves that testimony is valid evidence. If testimony really was valid evidence, would the confession be included in the example?

The reason testimony is not evidence is not only because people make mistakes, but also because people lie.

[deleted_user0]

Ah, I just discovered a paragraph cleverly left out by Lejend! Ofcourse this Loki would do that...

Unknown to the detective, this group of 31 people actually form a creepy sect, called Illejendati, and they killed Jones as part of a human sacrifice rite, which they copied from one of Cortes' his journals about the Aztecs. Being discovered by the police, Smith was put forward by the group to take the blame. Ofcourse, the detective, a diligent detective with a keen sense of scrutiny, wasn't particularly convinced by their statement, and their story set off his spider cop sense, which he had learned to trust after many years on the job. So the detective dug and dug, until he finally uncovered the truth in the form of a document signed by the headmaster detailing how and when they would sacrifice Jones, confessions made by members of the sect in exchange for amnesty, revealing multiple Jones being killed over the years, and for each Jones, there was a corresponding document. After checking alibi's the headmaster's movement indicated that he was on site at each of the cases. And ultimately Although no forensic evidence of Smith committing the homicide could be found, there was a thumbprint of the headmaster on the forehead of Jones, left behind by the ritual pushing off the cliff. The headmaster, who's identity was revealed to be Mrs. Lejenda, was put behind bars for 200 years.

The moral of this story? Human sacrifice is bad, mmkay?

[lejend]

Quit trolling.

It is stupid because you use a stupid example to make your point - although it is obviously meant to mostly have comedic value. In a more serious example Smith would deny any wrongdoing. Now it is no longer obvious whether Smith is a murderer or not - further investigation is needed.

In your example there is a confession to crime which exposes the criminal, but is stupidly ignored by the policeman. Then, even more stupidly, it is implied that any statement that incriminates Smith is valid because we know he is a criminal, and this proves that testimony is valid evidence. If testimony really was valid evidence, would the confession be included in the example?

The reason testimony is not evidence is not only because people make mistakes, but also because people lie.

Thanks for replying seriously.

One of the atheist arguments against the existence of God, is that there isn't any evidence for the claim. Theism is frequently mocked as no different from, say, the belief in a teapot orbiting Jupiter. It's equally valid they say. However, this is plain false. There are hundreds of millions of people who've witnessed God.

To this the atheist says, "but testimony isn't evidence." The image in the OP takes this reasoning to its logical conclusion. If testimony isn't evidence, then truly every event lacks evidence.

After all you have never been to the moon alongside Armstrong and Aldrin. If people say that they worked on the space program? Testimony is not evidence.

Testimony should be inadmissible in court, since it isn't evidence. Even if a million people identify a certain criminal, that should be ignored.


Atheists simply confuse evidence, with convincing evidence. I could provide a thousand witnesses to the Holocaust, but if you don't consider it to be convincing evidence, that's simply a subjective opinion. It is the same for God.

[Gendarme]

One of the atheist arguments against the existence of God, is that there isn't any evidence for the claim.

As far as I know, this is the only argument.

Theism is frequently mocked as no different from, say, the belief in a teapot orbiting Jupiter. It's equally valid they say. However, this is plain false. There are hundreds of millions of people who've witnessed God.

To this the atheist says, "but testimony isn't evidence." The image in the OP takes this reasoning to its logical conclusion. If testimony isn't evidence, then truly every event lacks evidence.

After all you have never been to the moon alongside Armstrong and Aldrin. If people say that they worked on the space program? Testimony is not evidence.

Testimony should be inadmissible in court, since it isn't evidence. Even if a million people identify a certain criminal, that should be ignored.


Atheists simply confuse evidence, with convincing evidence. I could provide a thousand witnesses to the Holocaust, but if you don't consider it to be convincing evidence, that's simply a subjective opinion. It is the same for God.

I agree that evidence and convincing evidence/proof are misused often, and I probably misused it myself in this thread. Evidence is anything that supports an assertion, however weak it might be - and testimony certainly qualifies as evidence in this regard.

Testimony is not ideal, because people can be wrong, and people can lie. If ten persons testify for something, it reduces the chances of it being a lie or a mistake significantly compared to only one person testifying. However, the difference between ten million people testifying and a hundred million people testifying is not that great.

Testimony is useful to guide the research/investigation, whether it is science or a criminal. Three people saying that the attacker was a tall man with black hair is certainly going to make things easier for the investigation of the crime, and two persons claiming that their use of drug X causes drowsiness can give rise to actual scientific research (a blind test to see whether X actually causes drowsiness or not). However, sometimes better evidence is hard to get by (especially in criminal investigation), and you have to go with what you have - testimony. In that case, you would try to investigate how likely it is that the witnesses are mistaken or lying, and reach a conclusion from there. This is what I am going to do right now.

The holocaust and the moon landing are events that I believe happened (believing something to be true means that the probability of something being true is strictly higher than 50%), simply because I have very little reason to believe they are lies told by the elite, and then mistakes further spread by the people who believed the lies, although I have some. I am not especially certain in the fact that these events actually happened, and if you have any decent evidence against them it could change my belief. Though, I understand that I am not with the majority on this, so I am probably not speaking for many others here.

I believe that the probability of the existence of a personal God (the God who answers prayers) is extremely low, because it is an extraordinary claim (a claim that is very likely to be false in the absence of strong evidence, as opposed to an ordinary claim like "There are less than 1000 people online on ESO right now."), and the only evidence is testimony that is very questionable due to the extremely heavy influence of placebo while witnessing God. In other words, the likelihood of the witnesses making a mistake is extremely high, and if you do not believe that so many (how many, anyway?) are affected by the placebo effect, and think it to be extraordinary, it is still far from as extraordinary as the claim which it seeks to disprove.

TL;DR: Don't drink and drive placebo and testify.

[deleted_user0]

Quit trolling.

It is stupid because you use a stupid example to make your point - although it is obviously meant to mostly have comedic value. In a more serious example Smith would deny any wrongdoing. Now it is no longer obvious whether Smith is a murderer or not - further investigation is needed.

In your example there is a confession to crime which exposes the criminal, but is stupidly ignored by the policeman. Then, even more stupidly, it is implied that any statement that incriminates Smith is valid because we know he is a criminal, and this proves that testimony is valid evidence. If testimony really was valid evidence, would the confession be included in the example?

The reason testimony is not evidence is not only because people make mistakes, but also because people lie.

Thanks for replying seriously.

One of the atheist arguments against the existence of God, is that there isn't any evidence for the claim. Theism is frequently mocked as no different from, say, the belief in a teapot orbiting Jupiter. It's equally valid they say. However, this is plain false. There are hundreds of millions of people who've witnessed God.

To this the atheist says, "but testimony isn't evidence." The image in the OP takes this reasoning to its logical conclusion. If testimony isn't evidence, then truly every event lacks evidence.

After all you have never been to the moon alongside Armstrong and Aldrin. If people say that they worked on the space program? Testimony is not evidence.

Testimony should be inadmissible in court, since it isn't evidence. Even if a million people identify a certain criminal, that should be ignored.


Atheists simply confuse evidence, with convincing evidence. I could provide a thousand witnesses to the Holocaust, but if you don't consider it to be convincing evidence, that's simply a subjective opinion. It is the same for God.

testimonies by people are considered evidence, they're just not very reliable evidence. and in criminal cases you need to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, which is often not achieved by testimony. however, just because you can conjure up people who are willing to state on the record that they have had conversations with god, doesn't mean that you have any convincing evidence as you say, but even if it did make for convincing evidence, for example if 10.000 people on different parts of the planet all come forward with the same story at the same time without anything linking them together, this would not mean it's true. Evidence isn't fact or truth, it merely points in that direction. Also, when you say that people have witnessed God, you aren't using witnessing in the same narrow way that the term is used in legal courts. In short, you are not playing a fair game, but you are bending words to your benefit, as usual. I guess that's to be expected since logic isn't your strong suit. I suppose you can always just gamble, the odds are about 50% anyway.

Nice trolling though.

[vardar]

Atheists do not have enough faith to be atheists

[deleted_user0]

Got any proof for that statement? I mean, I reckon there is a 50% chance that it's correct, but still.

In any case, that's why it's best to be an agnost. Don't need any faith or evidence of which kind whatsoever.

[vardar]

Got any proof for that statement? I mean, I reckon there is a 50% chance that it's correct, but still.

In any case, that's why it's best to be an agnost. Don't need any faith or evidence of which kind whatsoever.

I just said that to get a reply, I am Christian but really don't care how other people live their spiritual lives or lack thereof. I have peace of mind and that's good enough for me.