In another thread, Rabbit claimed that some atheist organizations have concluded that this event is a myth, and Rabbit herself concludes that it didn't happen.
I asked Rabbit to provide a citation that supports her statement that an atheist organization disputes the authenticity of the quote. She has not responded.
In the past, I had contacted the Bush library, and asked them to either verify that the statement had occurred, or to refute it. They did not oblige me, saying instead that the library would not comment on it.
After Rabbit's statement, I once again looked up the source of the original quote Rob Sherman who provides instructions on how to get copies of documents held by the Bush library in reference to this event. I wrote to the Bush Library, and got copies of several letters, mostly written to the White house asking Bush to confirm or deny the statement. There is only one document FROM the White House, written to Jon G. Murray, president of American Atheists, from C.Boyden Gray, counsel to the president. This letter is widely available on the internet, so the only difference now is that I have proof that the Bush library has records of the claim.
The letter reads (in its entirety):
quote:Dear Mr. Murray: Your letter of December 19, 1988, to President Bush has been referred to me for reply. As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government. Needless to say, the President supports the Constitution and laws of the United States, and you may rest assured that this Administration will proceed at all times with due regard for the legal rights of atheists, as will as others with whom the President disagrees.
Sincerely, C. Boyden Grey
Note that the letter does not make any attempt to deny that the president made the statement, and indeed confirms that he does not support atheists and disagrees with them. That would tend to support Sherman's allegation that the statement was made.
Rabbit: Like it or not, there is no evidence whatsoever that Bush did not make the statement. The argument that the only source for this quote is Rob Sherman only proves that the allegation is uncorroborated, it does not prove that it didn't happen. To make such an argument is essentially an ad hominem attack against Sherman, impugning his honesty and integrity. There are plenty of events that have only been reported by one person, which are nonetheless accepted as truth by society. The Bible is full of them.
I'm still awaiting a citation from you, if you have one.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Oh. Snap.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Whoa, you are dedicated.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
o.O Wow.. Umm.. Wow.
But wait, 1988? I thought this was Bush II who made the statement, not Bush I.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
What was the other thread?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It was Bush I, not Bush II. He was vice president at the time.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That man, is effort.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: What was the other thread?
Church and State Nice job, Glenn Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
In that thread the quote is attributed to George W Bush, not George H W Bush. Here you say the quote is George H W Bush. Which is it?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I attributed it to George W Bush. It was a mistake on my part. Apologies. (I was conflating it with a similar statement made by a random person who was not related to the Bushes in the wake of 9/11. The Bush quote was referenced at about the same time so I got them confused).
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ah, okay. That makes sense. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Rabbit: Like it or not, there is no evidence whatsoever that Bush did not make the statement. The argument that the only source for this quote is Rob Sherman only proves that the allegation is uncorroborated, it does not prove that it didn't happen. To make such an argument is essentially an ad hominem attack against Sherman, impugning his honesty and integrity. There are plenty of events that have only been reported by one person, which are nonetheless accepted as truth by society. The Bible is full of them.
Glenn, if this was an intentionally ironic reference to C.S. Lewis's "God or a bad man" argument, that was well done, but IMO, too subtle. If it was unintentional... well the irony is still funny and I hope you don't mind me having a chuckle at your expense.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Any chance of learning what "the statement" is without reading through 5 pages of posts?
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Christine, it is in the 4th post down on the 2nd page of the "Church and State" page. The post is by Raymond Arnold.
[edited 1st to read 2nd because when I originally posted I thought the earlier link was to the 1st page but it was actually to the 2nd. Thanks, Teshi, for pointing that out! ]
[ February 28, 2010, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: JonnyNotSoBravo ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Um, the "fourth post down" is either made by either Stephen or DSH, depending on when you start counting. Unless you are referring to the second/third post down on the first page.
I think you mean the second page, 4th post:
quote:The relevant interview with George W Bush:
quote:Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists? Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
More to the point, the fact that the president is sworn in on a Bible, the fact that several state constitutions still require a "religious test" for office (even if it's rarely enforced), the fact that our currency (I'd certainly consider a form of mainstream media), and the pledge of allegiance to our country all remind us that being religious is still the official sanctioned norm.
(Edit: Oh, an Tom's example is EXTREMELY common)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Glenn, if this was an intentionally ironic reference to C.S. Lewis's "God or a bad man" argument, that was well done, but IMO, too subtle. If it was unintentional... well the irony is still funny and I hope you don't mind me having a chuckle at your expense.
Entirely unintentional. In fact, I still don't see the irony. Perhaps you could point it out to me.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm not sure I get the specific reference, but I think saying "there's no evidence it DIDN'T happen and these people say it did!" is the sort of bad argument for Christianity that drivers atheists nuts.
In this case, the evidence is significantly more compelling because a) the person making the claim has established credentials, b) the statement being made is not particularly extraordinary, c) the people who might have wanted to refute the claim had the opportunity to do so and chose not to, and instead made statments that lent credence to it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Ray's got it. I brought Lewis into it because one of his famous arguments is that Jesus must be who he claimed to be or a liar... which I thought paralleled your statements about Sherman.
I just got a chuckle out of seeing it go the other way-- I didn't have anything tangible to add to the discussion.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Whether he "did what someone said he did" is an argument that occurs throughout the bible. That irony was my intention, and I'm aware it goes both ways. But it applies just as much to Jesus as it does to Moses, Abraham, or, well... anyone in the bible.
Bringing the "Lord Liar Lunatic" argument into it makes it specific to Jesus, which didn't make any sense to me.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
You were giving Sherman a similar benefit of doubt to that which Lewis gives Jesus, I thought, hence my chuckle (which remains whether it was your intent to amuse me or not )
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think there is, for practical purposes, a rather enormous difference in the amount of "benefit of the doubt" given to Jesus vs Sherman.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
true dat. I meant similar in kind, not in degree.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Gotcha.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think we can conclude, probably using Occam's Razor and Modus Tolens, that Sherman is the Second Coming of Christ (or the First, if you're Jewish).
Amen.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Sherman is the Second Coming of Christ (or the First, if you're Jewish).
Nope. He's dead.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Or, maybe he's at God's side. I have a book right here that says he is. ;p
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
By definition, that would be dead.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
OR, it could be the opposite of dead! But not undead, as God hates zombies.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That would be quite a shock to Sweet Zombie Jesus!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Glenn, I don't have the time or the inclination to relocate my sources. But as I am sure you are aware, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that a presidential candidate and sitting Vice President in the latter half of the 20th century said atheist shouldn't be regarded as citizens is quite extraordinary. The only evidence that this happened is
1. Rob Sherman says it did.
and
2. The letter written by Bush's secretary in response to the accusation.
Lets start with the latter. This letter is a pretty typical politician's response to an unsubstantiated accusation. It neither confirms nor denies the original accusation but side steps the issue. Rather than directly addresses the event, it clearly states that the substance of the accusation (Bush thinks Atheist shouldn't be considered citizens) is without merit while at the same time adding clear language that would prevent anyone from misconstruing the statement as support for atheism. The letter was written by an assistant and knowing how these things work, chances are good Bush never even saw original request or heard about the accusation. This letter does nothing to either refute or support the original claim.
Now lets look at Sherman's claim. There are several reasons to question its credibility. Sherman did not publish this until a year after the event occurred. He was at the time working for American Atheist magazine. I would have expected a much more immediate response to such an inflammatory comment . As Sherman tells the story, the exchange took place at a news conference. Sherman has yet to find anyone at the news conference who will confirm that the exchange took place. Earlier, he gave names of several people who he claimed heard the exchance, they have denied it.
You are right that there is no proof it didn't happen. It might have but there is also startlingly little evidence that it did happen.
As I said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That evidence which Sherman has provided is tissue paper thin at best. Until there is much stronger evidence, it is only reasonable to view this claim with extreme skepticism.
And like I said before, I'm not doing this to defend Bush. I detest the man and would love it if he'd said it. Unfortunately, I'd loose my skeptics credentials if I believed this story.
[ March 05, 2010, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I should point out: I don't for a second believe that Bush actually thought that theism was a legal requirement for citizenship. I'm surprised that I've never heard anyone accuse Sherman of "gotcha" journalism, because it's a pretty valid charge. Sherman's question essentially asked Bush to untangle a conflation of meanings between the words "citizen" and "patriot." I'm sure what Bush meant by his response what that atheists could not be considered "Good citizens" as opposed to being legal citizens of the United States.
quote:But as I am sure you are aware, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If this was an extraordinary claim, I would agree with you. But "what a president said when asked a question" is hardly extraordinary. The statement is indicative of a prevailing attitude conflating "God and Country," which allowed congress to add a patently unconstitutional clause into the pledge of allegiance with impunity, and which is a major underlying argument used by people who claim that "America was founded on Christian principles."
Also at work here is the fact that 1987 was before the internet allowed for the social vocality that atheists currently enjoy. You may not have noticed the change, but it's pretty astonishing to me that Obama dispensed with "Americans of all faiths" rhetoric and actually mentions non-believers. That's a huge change. In 1987 I still kept my atheism to myself, for fear of being beaten up.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Also at work here is the fact that 1987 was before the internet allowed for the social vocality that atheists currently enjoy. You may not have noticed the change, but it's pretty astonishing to me that Obama dispensed with "Americans of all faiths" rhetoric and actually mentions non-believers. That's a huge change. In 1987 I still kept my atheism to myself, for fear of being beaten up.
Where in the US do you live? Somewhere the the bible belt perhaps? I had at least a dozen outspoken atheist friends in the 80s and none of them were beaten up or had any particular difficulties. In the parts of the country where I've lived, I think there was significantly more religious and non-religious tolerance in the 80s than there was under Bush II.
I believe you felt uncomfortable, but I am not aware that hate crimes against atheists have ever been all that common.
Its fairly evident that you don't find this an extraordinary claim. But that's an emotional response not a logical one. Find me any verified statement from a public figure in the 80s saying atheist shouldn't be citizens. Look at the facts. There is absolutely nothing in the documents from the Bush library that supports Sherman's claim.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I have been personally beaten up for voicing my atheism. I live in New York state.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Just to thrown in my two cents, I also live in New York State (and have my entire life), and have never even come close to being beaten up for voicing my atheism.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Find me any verified statement from a public figure in the 80s saying atheist shouldn't be citizens. Look at the facts.
Re-read my first paragraph. Then re-read my second paragraph. The idea that atheists can't be "good citizens" is a prevailing attitude that still exists today.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
White Whale: Lucky you.
And BTW: How old are you?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Just turned 24.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
IOW, in 1987 you were one. Might have something to do with Glenn's experiences of that era being different.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Find me any verified statement from a public figure in the 80s saying atheist shouldn't be citizens. Look at the facts.
Re-read my first paragraph. Then re-read my second paragraph. The idea that atheists can't be "good citizens" is a prevailing attitude that still exists today.
Not the same thing at all. i haven't claimed that there aren't plenty of people who are biased against atheists. Some people distrust and dislike anyone who is different. There are people who are prejudiced against Catholicism, Mormonism, Judaism and pretty much any "ism" you can come up with. I'm sure atheists have more than there share of haters. During the height of the cold war in the 1950s, there was a lot of emphasis on the fact that communists were atheists. That's was the climate in which the "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance. I'm pretty sure there are still a lot of people who think being Christian is essential to being a Patriot. That was never my argument.
But there is a mile of difference between all that and a sitting VP and major Presidential candidate saying Atheists shouldn't be consider citizens. That is what Sherman is claiming and its simply too far fetched to be believed based on his word alone.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It is far fetched to assume that a president a) had an opinion that was the same as the prevailing opinion at the time, and b) was willing to say that opinion in an interview? How is that far fetched at all? If it's the prevailing opinion he'd have little reason to censor himself.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:But there is a mile of difference between all that and a sitting VP and major Presidential candidate saying Atheists shouldn't be consider citizens.
You're missing my point. The word "citizen" has a legal meaning, and a connotative meaning. Bush was responding to a question he hadn't anticipated, which conflated "citizen" with "patriot." It's perfectly reasonable to think that he might have used the word "citizen" to mean "a person who makes a positive difference in society" rather than a "person who is a legal member of society."
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
White Whale's comment got me thinking: How old are YOU Rabbit?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I was in college in the 80s.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: By definition, that would be dead.
By that definition, Moses was dead when he received the Torah.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Sorry, I just jumped in and didn't realize the discussion was specifically about the 1980s.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Glenn, I'm very sorry to hear you were beaten up for being an atheist. That's simply horrible.
I'm sure my perspective on this is skewed by the fact that I've spent most of the past 30 years on college campuses. But I've also lived in some pretty nedneck states (Utah and Montana) and haven't ever observed the kind of wide spread hostility towards atheists you describe. I believe it exists, I'm just don't think it was any worse in 80s.
I think the culture war, in general (and this is definitely one aspect of that war) has heated up significantly in recent years. If you look a little deeper, you'd see that the same group that believes that atheists can't be true patriots, believes that liberals in general (on even one issue) can't possibly be patriots. I've been called a traitor (straight out to my face) by people in elected office. At least a dozen of my friends have been assulted for riding road bicycles, which based on comments of the attackers is a liberal unpatriotic thing to do and far more visible than being an Atheist. Atheists are not alone on this one.
We are living outside the US right now in part because we've been called unamerican by so very many people, so I sympathize thoroughly with your offense on this issue.
Still, I think the evidence does not support Sherman's claim and find it a bit ironic that people who are so zealous in support of knowledge and reason accept and spread Sherman's claim as factual because it fits their personal biases on the subject.
[ March 06, 2010, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Still, I think the evidence does not support Sherman's claim"
Well, it doesn't not support it either.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Still, I think the evidence does not support Sherman's claim"
Well, it doesn't not support it either.
So? There is no such thing as evidence for the non-existence of something. As I've been told many times by Atheists, in the absence of reliable evidence that something does exist, it is most reasonable to presume it does not.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Atheists are not alone on this one.
Alone is an intriguing word. In essence, I was beaten up more for being alone than for being an atheist. It was a pretty amazing lesson in mob mentality. What happened was that I said something like "No one believes in God anymore."
My reasons for making the statement are somewhat complex. Some of my motivation came from the fact that I had read several articles during the '70s on "empty pew syndrome" which said that society was becoming less religious. In retrospect, I don't think any of these articles said anything about people "not believing in God." In fact, I had never even heard the word "atheist" when I made the statement. But in addition to the articles, I was also at an age where children had stopped believing in Santa and the Easter bunny, etc. When I had been younger I had watched as certain "big kids" confronted younger kids (say 3rd graders confronting 1st or 2nd graders) asking them if they still believed in Santa, and then ridiculing them if they said yes. To me, this issue had been settled years before; there was nothing further to prove. We were old enough that Santa was an in-joke. Asking "what did you get from Santa Claus?" came with a twinkle in the eye. No one actually believed in him anymore, but knowing the truth was part of growing up. And to me, belief in God was part and parcel of the same thing.
So when I said "No one believes in God anymore," I wasn't being arrogant, I was just being naive. I thought God was a fiction that adults continued in front of their kids. But the kid I said it to DID believe, and he told me so. Then he went around bringing other kids to me, saying "Tell him. Tell him you believe in God." After about three kids I admitted that I was wrong, but it didn't help. I couldn't backpedal fast enough, he was on a mission, and two other kids started helping him, bringing other kids over until they reached a point where they suddenly realized that they had asked EVERY kid on the playground, and they all believed in God. Except me. Up until that moment there hadn't been any sense that this was going to become violent. It was more like there was a moment when these three kids ran out of people to ask, and at the same time, realized that I was utterly alone, and no one would come to my defense. So what else do you do in a case like that? You beat the kid up. One of them pulled my arms backward through the monkey bars, while the other two started throwing punches.
quote:Sorry, I just jumped in and didn't realize the discussion was specifically about the 1980s.
The Bush event happened (or didn't happen) in 1987. I was beat up in the 70's, but as far as I could tell, there had been no significant change in the public acceptance of atheism in the intervening years, so I still kept it to myself unless I had real confidence that the person I was talking to wouldn't react badly. There had been, as has been mentioned, the rise of the Christian Right in the 1980's, but that wasn't in opposition to atheism per se. Atheism simply wasn't an issue that was worth talking about, but when it was, claims of "godless communism" or "no atheists in foxholes" were met with silence or assumed approval. If Bush had been accused of making a similar statement about black people or Jews, even if it turned out it wasn't true, it still would have made the paper. But Sherman's accusation was completely ignored.
I hadn't heard of the Bush quote until ~1997, when I started to notice that atheists were making a case for our acceptance. In fact, I hadn't even heard of Madalyn Murray O'Hair until then, and I wondered how I could have failed to notice "the most famous atheist in America" for so long. The media simply hadn't been interested in covering her, and when it finally did, it wasn't because of what she'd done, but because it assumed that she had absconded with the missing money (which was hers). She was even blamed for her own disappearance, since it was safe to assume that an atheist would "stoop to something like that."
And that, essentially, is the crux of the argument against Sherman. He's an atheist, and therefore, he's just "uppity," not worthy of any sort of respect. So without any evidence, it's easy to just dismiss his account, sew seeds of doubt, and allow them to grow. The last time I had this argument with Dagonee, but it started with Dag's insistence that an atheist who had been murdered because he didn't believe in God couldn't have happened, because all news reports of the event had been traced back to a single newspaper, in the town where the murder happened. Once again, it was easy to sweep away, because the mainstream media didn't think it was newsworthy enough to send reporters and write the story themselves. So you wonder why I don't think Bush thought twice about making a statement that dismisses atheists capability to be citizens or patriots? He had nothing to lose. Because nobody cared.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Not "Reliable." ANY.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Not "Reliable." ANY.
No, the argument has to be "reliable evidence" or its a moot argument. There is all kinds of evidence that God exists from the testimony of witnesses to the existence of sacred texts. You can argue that none of this evidence is objectively reliable and you would have a point, but if you claim it doesn't exist you are factually incorrect.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The only point that still strikes me as ambiguous is this:
quote: As Sherman tells the story, the exchange took place at a news conference. Sherman has yet to find anyone at the news conference who will confirm that the exchange took place. Earlier, he gave names of several people who he claimed heard the exchance, they have denied it.
I know you said you don't have time to go source hunting, but I'd like some clarification on that. Apart from that, what we have is "a journalist made a claim that was, frankly, not unreasonable given the time period," and the politician in question didn't deny the claim.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: As I've been told many times by Atheists, in the absence of reliable evidence that something does exist, it is most reasonable to presume it does not.
An eyewitness account by a credentialed journalist is not "an absence of reliable evidence." Calling it such is an ad hominem attack.
In your original criticism you claim that Sherman has changed his story. I've been following this story since I first heard about it in 1997, and I've NEVER seen any version of it other than the quote that was given. For that matter, while I've seen many criticisms of Sherman's style, and dismissive criticisms of his credibility, I've never seen any claim that he has been caught in a lie. And I've never heard that any atheist organizations have branded his story a myth. So I asked you for citations. If there's information out there, I want to know about it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And that, essentially, is the crux of the argument against Sherman. He's an atheist, and therefore, he's just "uppity," not worthy of any sort of respect. So without any evidence, it's easy to just dismiss his account, sew seeds of doubt, and allow them to grow.
That's simply not true. The exchange in question isn't even widely known outside atheist circles. Google it and see. The people who told me its validity was highly suspect are member of the freethinker movement which is hardly anti-atheist.
If this really happened at a news conference as is claimed, then lots of people heard the statement. It should be easy to find one of them to verify the exchange took place but Sherman hasn't been able to do that. The people who he has said could verify, denied they heard the exchange. It wasn't just that the mainstream media ignored, Sherman didn't even publish it for over a year. Doesn't any of that strike you as suspect?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It strikes me as suspect that you keep making claims but you refuse to provide citations.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:An eyewitness account by a credentialed journalist is not "an absence of reliable evidence." Calling it such is an ad hominem attack.
I have seen so much misreporting, perpetuation of myth and outright lying from credentialed journalists that I do not consider the word of one reporter to be reliable evidence. All you have to do to be a "credentialed journalist" is be employed by a print or broadcast media organization. Sherman's credential was as editor of American Atheist magazine. That hardly makes him an unbiased, objective observer.
And when one is discussing the validity of a persons testimony, ad hominem attacks are not a logical error.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
What you are accusing him of is not misreporting or perpetuation of myth. You are accusing him of an outright lie. But once again, you have provided no evidence that Sherman has been caught in a lie or misrepresentation. He has not been caught here either. If you want to discredit him, you could provide some evidence. It's not like he hasn't been active other than this in case, you'd think he might have put his foot in his mouth elsewhere.
And when "discussing the validity of a persons testimony," ad hominem attacks are just that: attacks; unless you provide evidence that his testimony is suspect. You have failed to do that, other than to say they he is an atheist, and therefore biased, which is another attack.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Apart from that, what we have is "a journalist made a claim that was, frankly, not unreasonable given the time period,"
This is the point on which we disagree. I remember this time period very well. I had a large number of atheist friends and associates at the time and I don't find it in the least bit probable for that time period. If it is, then you should be able to find many similar statements being made in that time frame.
quote:and the politician in question didn't deny the claim.
He denied the substance of the claim without addressing the claim itself.
I think people are being a bit disingenuous on this issue. The thing that makes this statement so inflammatory and so offensive is that Bush didn't merely say atheists shouldn't be considered good citizens, he says "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens."
When I google it, I see dozens of sites outraged that Bush said atheists should be denied the rights of citizenship. He clearly denied that. And I haven't heard anyone, even the right wing wackos, claiming atheists aren't citizens. Not in the 1970s, not in the 1980s and not today. That's why I find this quote so improbable.
If the issue is merely that Bush doesn't think your a Patriot because your an atheist, I understand the offense but it just isn't the same. Bush doesn't think anyone who disagrees with him is a Patriot. He doesn't think I'm a patriot either. So what? I don't think he's a good citizen or a true patriot himself.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:He clearly denied that.
Wait what now?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:He clearly denied that.
Wait what now?
quote:President supports the Constitution and laws of the United States, and you may rest assured that this Administration will proceed at all times with due regard for the legal rights of atheists, as will as others with whom the President disagrees.
That's a pretty clear denial of the accusation that Bush doesn't think atheists should have the rights of citizenship. Like I said, its a really classic example of political speak. He denies the substance of the allegation without ever actually addressing the accusation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And that, essentially, is the crux of the argument against Sherman. He's an atheist, and therefore, he's just "uppity," not worthy of any sort of respect.
Glen, Since you are pointing out ad hominem attacks let me point out this one. It is not just an attack on a person, its an attack on a person you are talking to. You are attacking my motives for distrusting Sherman. Please apologize.
I have explained my motives. I have the highest respect for many atheists who I know, I have expressed my sincere regrets that you have been beaten for your beliefs, like you I am a person who many consider unpatriotic simply because I disagree with them and you have no reason to insult me in this way.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:You are attacking my motives for distrusting Sherman. Please apologize.
You have provided no evidence for why you think Sherman is distrustworthy, yet you continue to maintain that he can't be trusted. Why should I apologize for pointing that out?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually think the eyewitness testimony a year later thing is pretty reasonably. I think it is fair to say the event is questionable enough that I would not use it as the sole evidence to back up another point. However, I think proclaiming it a "myth" is still stretching it a lot.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" There is all kinds of evidence that God exists from the testimony of witnesses to the existence of sacred texts."
None of what I know of existing along these lines are actually evidences for the existence of god.
Sacred texts, for example, are evidence for the existence of god in exactly the same way that OSC's books are evidence for the existence of Ender. I am sure that you understand that this isn't evidence for the existence of Ender unless you are using the word "Evidence," to mean something other than "Evidence."
In the same way, eyewitness accounts of events are not evidence for the witnesses interpretation of those events being correct, the account is evidence for events transpiring in the way described by the witness.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:None of what I know of existing along these lines are actually evidences for the existence of god.
Paul, the entire point of the gospels is that they are supposed to be eyewitness testimony of Jesus, and the existence of 4 different witnesses theoretically adds credibility to the story.
The common counter-argument is that there are numerous reasons why the gospel testimony is suspect (the first known copies not having been written down for decades afterward, for example), and the claims being made require significantly more proof than what 4 somewhat contradictory accounts can hope to provide.
I don't think the gospels are nearly compelling enough to prove what they want to prove, but comparing them to a book that does not claim to be anything other than fiction is silly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:You are attacking my motives for distrusting Sherman. Please apologize.
You have provided no evidence for why you think Sherman is distrustworthy, yet you continue to maintain that he can't be trusted. Why should I apologize for pointing that out?
I don't think you should apologize for pointing that out. I think you should apologize for saying I distrust Sherman because I think atheists are uppity and not worthy of my respect. I have explained my motivation. What reason do you have to doubt my word?
I have provided two reasons why I think Sherman's account of the exchange is not trust worthy.
1. He did not publish it or speak of it publicly for a year after the event. I find that some what suspicious. If George Bush had said that in my presence, I would have had it in a letter to the editor before I went to bed, and I'm not even an Atheist let along editor of an atheist magazine. Given what we know about memory and how it changes over time, that the conversation wasn't recorded and my experience with the accuracy of journalist in general, this alone is a good reason to doubt the accuracy of the quote.
2. No one else present at the new conference can confirm that the statement was made. This was a news conference with a recently declared Presidential candidate. Lots of credentialed journalists were present. It shouldn't be hard to identify several who reported the event and ask them if they heard the exchange but Sherman hasn't been able to do that. I am told that he has named individuals who supposedly overheard the conversation and they have all denied ever hearing.
If you do not find those compelling reasons to question the veracity of Sherman's statements, then your judgement differs from mine. But it is completely unfair of you to keep repeating that I have no reason to doubt him except prejudice against atheists when I have repeatedly given you my two reasons.
What reason do you have to believe his report is accurate besides your prejudice against Bush and for atheists?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In the same way, eyewitness accounts of events are not evidence for the witnesses interpretation of those events being correct, the account is evidence for events transpiring in the way described by the witness.
Paul, You are splitting hairs. Evidence is no the same as proof. The Torah reports that Moses spoke with God "face to face". If you were to question my existence and BlackBlade told you "She's real, I spoke with her face to face.", would that not be considered evidence for my existence? Certainly it wouldn't be incontrovertible evidence maybe not even good evidence, but it is certainly evidence.
As I've already said, there are plenty of good arguments for considering all the evidence pointing to the existence of God invalid. Why not stick with these easily defensible arguments rather than the rather preposterous claim that there is no evidence at all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Paul, You are splitting hairs. Evidence is no the same as proof.
Only when you are using explicit and specific legal terminology. In all other contexts, evidence is proof and the dictionary even defines it as such.
quote:Why not stick with these easily defensible arguments rather than the rather preposterous claim that there is no evidence at all.
That is not really a preposterous claim unless you loosen one's personal definition of evidence to be anything that could be self-interpreted as grounds for belief. In which case, there is evidence for god much in the same way that there is evidence for santa claus.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Paul, You are splitting hairs. Evidence is no the same as proof.
Only when you are using explicit and specific legal terminology. In all other contexts, evidence is proof and the dictionary even defines it as such.
By that definition, there is also no evidence that Bush ever spoke to Sherman. It still comes back to the same point.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:This was a news conference with a recently declared Presidential candidate
Just to be clear, the press conference in question took place on August 27, 1987. Bush announced his candidacy in October 1987. Bush's visit to Illinois was to oversee disaster response to a flood. I've never heard any description of the news conference, but my impression was that it was hastily thrown together at his arrival at an airport.
quote: I am told that he has named individuals who supposedly overheard the conversation and they have all denied ever hearing.
In my opinion, the fact that he pointed to people who might have heard the exchange lends credence to his belief that they would back him up. The fact they they didn't hear it, or didn't remember it, is unfortunate, but it proves nothing. From what I can see of such events, every reporter is concentrating on getting their own story, not someone else's.
quote:But it is completely unfair of you to keep repeating that I have no reason to doubt him except prejudice against atheists when I have repeatedly given you my two reasons.
You gave this as a reason why you distrust him:
quote:Sherman's credential was as editor of American Atheist magazine. That hardly makes him an unbiased, objective observer.
Beyond that, my statement with the word "uppity" refers to the general public's dismissal of his claim, not yours in particular. How much that general dismissal weighs in your opinion, I have no idea.
quote:What reason do you have to believe his report is accurate besides your prejudice against Bush and for atheists?
Again, I've given my reasons, but I'll repeat: Politicians refute such claims all the time. I believe that if he hadn't made the comment, that he would have refuted Sherman's claim. He was asked, his office responded, and they carefully avoided the issue. Even after this many years, the Bush library still won't offer a direct comment on it. It would be easy to put to rest, but they won't do it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Paul, You are splitting hairs. Evidence is no the same as proof.
Only when you are using explicit and specific legal terminology. In all other contexts, evidence is proof and the dictionary even defines it as such.
By that definition, there is also no evidence that Bush ever spoke to Sherman. It still comes back to the same point.
1. I'm not speaking to that point, and 2. That wouldn't make what you stated any less in need of correction.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: I'm not speaking to that point,
So you're just trying to derail my thread?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Paul, You are splitting hairs. Evidence is no the same as proof.
Only when you are using explicit and specific legal terminology. In all other contexts, evidence is proof and the dictionary even defines it as such.
By that definition, there is also no evidence that Bush ever spoke to Sherman. It still comes back to the same point.
1. I'm not speaking to that point, and 2. That wouldn't make what you stated any less in need of correction.
Context is more important in determining the meaning of a word than a dictionary definition.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Only when you are using explicit and specific legal terminology. In all other contexts, evidence is proof and the dictionary even defines it as such.
Certainly not all other contexts. In science and mathematics and logic, evidence and proof are distinctly different concepts.
I don't know what dictionary you use that gives that definition. The first dictionary I pulled up gives only the folllowing 3 definitions for evidence when its used as a noun.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face. 3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law
All of those a distinctly different from proof.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah, Sam, I have never heard anyone use the word evidence to mean "proof" before today. Good evidence can provide proof, but it doesn't have to and even something we know is true can have evidence suggesting otherwise.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Context is more important in determining the meaning of a word than a dictionary definition.
Then it is a good thing that I spoke explicitly to the importance of context when making my statement.
quote:I don't know what dictionary you use that gives that definition.
websters, american heritage, RH dictionary, most notably:
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
quote:[/qb]So you're just trying to derail my thread?[/qb]
No, Glenn. I'm making the side note because I feel it is worth pointing out that it is not ridiculous to assert that there is no evidence for god unless one reduces the definition of 'evidence' to something so meaningless as to also apply to anything we personally believe for any reason.
I do so because a statement is being called preposterous when it is not. I can do so even if I don't want to or haven't yet involved myself in the discussion about what tests are being proposed here to claim anything about what GHWB said or didn't say.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:no evidence for god unless one reduces the definition of 'evidence' to something so meaningless as to also apply to anything we personally believe for any reason.
What you are saying is that eye witness accounts do not count as evidence. I disagree strongly with that statement. They may not be particularly good evidence. In the case of proving a supernatural event that is not documented in any other fashion, they are woefully inadequate evidence.
I think there is plenty of room to ridicule the people who consider it the evidence remotely substantial in that particular case without either declaring eye witness accounts to be meaningless or constructing a hazy line between "real" eyewitness evidence and meaningless hearsay.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: By definition, that would be dead.
By that definition, Moses was dead when he received the Torah.
Panim el panim has a different meaning and context than al yad.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
2000 year old eye witnesses don't count. Just as a 200 year old constitution is deemed antiquated and obsolete.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:no evidence for god unless one reduces the definition of 'evidence' to something so meaningless as to also apply to anything we personally believe for any reason.
What you are saying is that eye witness accounts do not count as evidence. I disagree strongly with that statement. They may not be particularly good evidence. In the case of proving a supernatural event that is not documented in any other fashion, they are woefully inadequate evidence.
I think there is plenty of room to ridicule the people who consider it the evidence remotely substantial in that particular case without either declaring eye witness accounts to be meaningless or constructing a hazy line between "real" eyewitness evidence and meaningless hearsay.
Thank you Raymond. Weak and fallacious arguments, like those put forth by Samp and Paul support the idea that atheism is indeed a kind of religion.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I'm making the side note because I feel it is worth pointing out that it is not ridiculous to assert that there is no evidence for god unless one reduces the definition of 'evidence' to something so meaningless as to also apply to anything we personally believe for any reason.
Not sure I follow, but are you attempting an argument by reduction to absurdity? I don't see where that would serve any purpose.
In any case, I think Rabbit and I are using compatible definitions of proof and evidence. Neither of us has proof, and we both recognize that. But evidence is subjective, and her interpretation of the evidence is quite different from mine.
As for a goal in this argument, I originally asked Rabbit for citations for her counter claims. She hasn't provided any. Short of that, I'd be happy if she would refrain from calling the story a "myth" or an outright untruth. There is no evidence for it being untrue, only that it is not well substantiated. There is some evidence that it is true, and as such, I think it's perfectly reasonable to cite the quote as an example of an opinion of atheism. Whether he said it or not, the attitude is reflected in many conservative arguments, including the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principles.
And again, I have never thought that on reflection of the actual wording, that Bush truly believes that atheists have no legal right to citizenship. The quote is a reflection of an attitude, not an understanding of the constitution.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Weak and fallacious arguments, like those put forth by Samp and Paul support the idea that atheism is indeed a kind of religion. "
Its only "Weak and fallacious," because you, personally, believe in god. Neither gospels, nor the tanakh, nor any other sacred text, are evidence for the existence of god. Not under a definition of "Evidence," that you would accept when doing scientific research. You might accept them as providing a body of evidence, but you wouldn't accept them as being evidence for the truth of any claims made within those texts. Which is the argument I'm making. That "for," in my above posts is important.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I do not believe in God, and I still find your arguments weak and fallacious.
If my sister comes up to me and says "today I found a penny," I consider that adequate evidence that she found a penny. If she came up and said "yesterday I had a dream and then it came true" it would not be enough to persuade me to believe in psychic powers. But if a lot of people I trusted started to do so, it would be enough for me to start looking into the claims and finding some kind of explanation.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Indeed. Which says more about your prior estimates of the likelihood of a person finding a penny and a person having psychic powers than is does about how much credence you give to your sister's testimony.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Weak and fallacious arguments, like those put forth by Samp and Paul support the idea that atheism is indeed a kind of religion.
Interesting kind of religion that is, with no god, no rituals, no unified organization, no dogmas, no central texts, nor anything else that makes it anything like a religion, except perhaps that atheists are people too, meaning they act a lot like other people do, including making fallacious arguments.
Interesting that the one thing you can pin on atheism that makes it *like* religion is fallacious argumentation. I do find that to be interesting.
Know how you know atheism isn't a religion? If you sequestered 10 people (with no memories) on a large island and let them live and breed there for a thousand years, there would be zero chance of any of them becoming Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Pastafarians. There would be a decent chance of some of them becoming atheists. It's a philosophy, not a religion. Again, religious people broadsiding the English dictionary with overly generously inclusive word choice.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Which says more about your prior estimates of the likelihood of a person finding a penny and a person having psychic powers than is does about how much credence you give to your sister's testimony.
No, it says exactly the same amount about both of them (it doesn't say the SAME thing, but it says things of similar value).
Lets say that any given claim requires 1000 arbitrary units of evidence in order for me to operate under the assumption that it's true. The word of my sister is worth, say, 20 evidence points.
"Finding a penny" is a common event which comes with extra evidence all by itself, simply because I know it can and often happens (it's also largely inconsequential if it does - if I'm wrong about it, I haven't wasted much of my life or caused any suffering). So it comes with, say, 999 evidence-points from past experience. All I need is the say so of a reasonably trustworthy person for me believe that it happened, unless I find additional evidence (such as I think the person is deliberately tricking me to try and prove a point).
Whereas psychic powers not only have no reputable examples for me to work off of, I actively know about ways people can deceive themselves or others about it. So I might even assign it a starting point of negative evidence. The 20 arbitrary credibility points (you might think of it as "credibility credit") that my sister provides wouldn't be enough for me to take her seriously.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I do not believe in God, and I still find your arguments weak and fallacious.
If my sister comes up to me and says "today I found a penny," I consider that adequate evidence that she found a penny. If she came up and said "yesterday I had a dream and then it came true" it would not be enough to persuade me to believe in psychic powers. But if a lot of people I trusted started to do so, it would be enough for me to start looking into the claims and finding some kind of explanation.
Okay, so an argument to popularity proves that my position is weak and fallacious?
I don't understand.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:No, it says exactly the same amount about both of them (it doesn't say the SAME thing, but it says things of similar value).
Lets say that any given claim requires 1000 arbitrary units of evidence in order for me to operate under the assumption that it's true. The word of my sister is worth, say, 20 evidence points.
How many Arbitrary Units of Evidence do we need to believe in the sole omnipowerful omnipresent omniscient source and director of the universe and controller of the afterlife? Do we reach this A.U.I. standard based on, say, eyewitness accounts in the Bible?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Okay, so an argument to popularity proves that my position is weak and fallacious?
No, an argument to popularity proves Paul's point wrong. Paul's point being that Rabbit only finds the argument fallacious because he believes in God and therefore wants to be able to say there is evidence for God. I have no particular attachment to there being evidence for God or not. I disagree with your argument because its a bad argument.
The definition you provided says evidence is "that which TENDS to prove or disprove something," not something that automatically proves it one way or another. Different evidences have different tendencies and tell us different things in different situations. Evidence doesn't stop being evidence when counter evidence comes along to show that something else is more likely to be true. You still have to consider all the evidence, even if one thing is so persuasive as to make other things meaningless in a particular situation.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:How many Arbitrary Units of Evidence do we need to believe in the sole omnipowerful omnipresent omniscient source and director of the universe and controller of the afterlife? Do we reach this A.U.I. standard based on, say, eyewitness accounts in the Bible?
If we're using the same arbitrary scale I was using before, then you still only need 1000 points, but you might start with some rather large negative number of "base evidence" due to the extreme nature of the claim. You might, instead, say that all claims start at 0 but require different target AUE numbers. Either way, unlike finding a penny, I have no particular framework for how likely an omnipowerful omniscient omnipresent entity is to exist. (I'd wager it is somewhat less likely than the possibility of psyhic powers. Although it could be accomplished fairly easily if this world happened to exist in either the imagination of a being with infinite intellect or as a computer program run by a master sentient machine with an all access pass. Still, I must admit that since an infinite amount of power requires an infinite amount of proof, the technical AUE would be infinite. Though I'd not that at some point "arbitrarily powerful" and "infinitely powerful" become rather meaningless distinctions).
EDIT: I would say that whatever numbers you end up using, for practical use in the day to day life of human beings, it is best to have the target AUE number be based on how much effort you'd have to make to deform your life and/or how much suffering would result from you operating under the assumption that the claim in question was true, and that the "base evidence" you assign to the claim be determined by what past experience you have that corroborates the claim. If for some reason the existence of the penny my sister claims to have found will result in the life or death of an innocent person, I'd probably make a bigger effort to find corroborating evidence)
The purpose of the example was to answer Matt, pointing out that my sister's word is worth a specific amount of credibility, which is enough for me to believe somethings and not others.
If I'm going to elaborate on the example (for fun, mostly), I would say that specific eyewitness accounts in the Bible are evidence for the specific things they are claiming to witness. The New Testament in particular is evidence that a particular guy existed who said some things, did some miracles, died and came back. (I'd say that they are NOT evidence that said guy was the son of God and that God is an omnipotent all knowing diety, because none of the things he did really demonstrated that.)
If the events in question were instead, say, that a particular guy showed up, said some things, and then died, I'd have no problem operating under the assumption that that happened. I wouldn't deform my whole life based on that assumption, but I'd be okay believing it. I know from experience that people can show up, say some things, and die. That knowledge is evidence that stacks with the eyewitness account to add up it being a reasonable assertion.
But I know that people do perpetuate hoaxes from time to time and/or grossly misunderstand things. I also know that a lot of major events in the New Testament that would likely have been recorded elsewhere if they actually occurred (such as the sky darkening), but they weren't. So this counter-evidence vastly outweighs the eyewitness testimony an causes me to consider it far more likely that the testimony is wrong. contradictory
[ March 07, 2010, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Okay, so, now that I've stumbled into a bizarrely semantic argument and have nobody to blame but myself, let's work with your definitions? Disregarding whether or not it is SUFFICIENT evidence, if I make the claim that I have had a face to face talk with santa claus, this counts as evidence of santa claus?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
not particularly compelling evidence, but yes.
My turn: going with your definition, if some random close friend of yours told you they found a penny, is that evidence that they found a penny?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
More significant and emotionally evocative example: if a girl says she got raped, is that evidence of her having been raped?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The burden of proof in a free society is on the accuser. Religious people don't tell atheists to prove that there is no god. The evidence of god is equal for or against. It can't be proven that there is no god and it can't be proven that he exists. Hence, faith.
Atheism is a theism. If you lived in a theocracy, you would understand. Religious freedom means you are free to not believe. Without a nation of religious freedom, the nonbeliever could be burned at the stake or imposed an infidel tax.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: not particularly compelling evidence, but yes.
My turn: going with your definition, if some random close friend of yours told you they found a penny, is that evidence that they found a penny?
I would consider it testimony and not really care if it could be more substantively shown.
quote:More significant and emotionally evocative example: if a girl says she got raped, is that evidence of her having been raped?
I would consider it testimony and care if it could be more substantively shown.
But we're again back at what I said, about there being no evidence for god unless one reduces the definition of 'evidence' to something so meaningless as to also apply to anything we personally believe for any reason. If we want to use the strict terminology of what constitutes evidence, especially the legal one, I don't believe pointing at a book or a series of people's beliefs in, say, God, becomes admissible as evidence.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Many women have woken up in the morning, felt the remnants of sexual activity with no memory of consensual sex. Lacking memory "evidence" of consent, they accuse rape. A woman in the midst of a drunken blackout might be the best sex a man ever has. Passed out is rape. Blackout is not passed out. I'm sure there are many men serving time for this. You can't prove consent if the willing participant can't remember. I've been told of fights I engaged in that I couldn't remember. Having a black eye doesn't prove you were jumped.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
So, you draw a distinction between testimony and evidence? Okay, I guess. But in the times before cameras and DNA tests, did evidence even exist? If a guy mugs another guy in broad daylight, and 40 people identify him but there's no DNA or fingerprints or whatever available, that's only testimony? Is that enough to convict him, whether or not "evidence" was used?
I do, by the way, draw a distinction between eye witness testimony (which might be a lie, misinterpretation or delusion but at least falls under the category of some external event that you can describe) and a "feeling" which is entirely subjective.
Also, for the record, dictionary.com defines Testimony as:
quote: –noun,plural-nies. 1. Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court. 2. evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: So, you draw a distinction between testimony and evidence? Okay, I guess. But in the times before cameras and DNA tests, did evidence even exist? If a guy mugs another guy in broad daylight, and 40 people identify him but there's no DNA or fingerprints or whatever available, that's only testimony? Is that enough to convict him, whether or not "evidence" was used?
Convict? If we're trying to convict him, then we're talking legal definitions of what legally constitutes evidence. Something I have afforded for. In this case, testimony, when ruled admissable, can constitute evidence.
quote:Also, for the record, dictionary.com defines Testimony as:
quote: –noun,plural-nies. 1. Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court. 2. evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.
SO then we're back to the point I pretty much entered into: that even the dictionary defines evidence as proof. Something I could use to say that no, I still don't think that it's absurd to say that there's no evidence for God.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I don't trust interracial eye witness testimony. I'm sure there are innocent blacks in prison due to a white's eye witness testimony. I know it's completely un-pc to say this but they do all look alike to me, unless they have a unique hairstyle, beard or mark of some sort. Put them up in a lineup with someone of similar build and hairstyle, just as unreliable.
Facial characteristics are different than someone who witnesses a well known beggar being cured of blindness or dozens of people watching someone walk on water. Identifying the thickness of the brow is much more difficult than talking to a man who was a corpse three days ago.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't trust interracial eye witness testimony. I'm sure there are innocent blacks in prison due to a white's eye witness testimony. I know it's completely un-pc to say this but they do all look alike to me, unless they have a unique hairstyle, beard or mark of some sort. Put them up in a lineup with someone of similar build and hairstyle, just as unreliable.
Facial characteristics are different than someone who witnesses a well known beggar being cured of blindness or dozens of people watching someone walk on water. Identifying the thickness of the brow is much more difficult than talking to a man who was a corpse three days ago.
Well, malanthrop, that's insane.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
White people have more identifying features. Hair: Brown, blonde, black, dishwater, straight, wavy, curly. Eyes: blue, green, brown, hazel.
Variability among similar build blacks: light skinned or dark skinned.
I'm sure there are many innocent blacks in prison due to white people's testimony.
When's the last time you saw a curly haired Asian person with blue eyes.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I was rather pointedly not responding to malanthrop.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
sorry, i can't help it. he's completely bonkers. flame to my moth.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The majority happens to have much more diversity making them more reliably identifiable.
I'm a German/French/Native American and you call me white. You also call the Irish/Jew or the Spanish/Italian white. Who's stereotyping when the geographical separation of their ancestry and culture is just as vast. Having a light skin tone does not lump you into a category. Of course, white is white and black is black.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
nngggggfjjjkkk
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There are now three Jamaican families on my block. They move in upon the recommendation of the other. Florida is an amazingly diverse place. When I look at them I don't see "black" people. I have white neighbors I want replaced by Jamaican's the likes of these.
On the surface they are black, in reality they are regular hard working people. The shallow minded view the Irish, Italian, English, Spanish and French as simple "white people". This is stereotypical racism based upon skin tone. My Jamaican neighbors no more consider themselves African American than I consider myself Jewish.
My Jamaican neighbors hate, in their own words, "niggers".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
post (okay, I'm done)
[ March 08, 2010, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Which says more about your prior estimates of the likelihood of a person finding a penny and a person having psychic powers than is does about how much credence you give to your sister's testimony.
No, it says exactly the same amount about both of them (it doesn't say the SAME thing, but it says things of similar value).
Lets say that any given claim requires 1000 arbitrary units of evidence in order for me to operate under the assumption that it's true. The word of my sister is worth, say, 20 evidence points.
"Finding a penny" is a common event which comes with extra evidence all by itself, simply because I know it can and often happens (it's also largely inconsequential if it does - if I'm wrong about it, I haven't wasted much of my life or caused any suffering). So it comes with, say, 999 evidence-points from past experience. All I need is the say so of a reasonably trustworthy person for me believe that it happened, unless I find additional evidence (such as I think the person is deliberately tricking me to try and prove a point).
Whereas psychic powers not only have no reputable examples for me to work off of, I actively know about ways people can deceive themselves or others about it. So I might even assign it a starting point of negative evidence. The 20 arbitrary credibility points (you might think of it as "credibility credit") that my sister provides wouldn't be enough for me to take her seriously.
This, despite my typo, is exactly what I was getting at. Though as you point out, it is a little more complicated than that, since you have to consider how much you care about the truth of the statement and whether your sister has motivation to lie or has impaired judgement when it comes to pennies, etc.
One way I like to think about it is equating levels of surprise. In other words, for a given unlikely event (alien abductions being true, for example) is it equivalently surprising to see 10 heads in a row when flipping a fair coin? 50 heads? 1000? Equal quantities of evidence should change this value by equal amounts.
And, to weigh in on the semantic discussion, I believe we're using the word "evidence" in a non-legalistic sense, and as such it is not a synonym for proof, dictionary definitions notwithstanding. Evidence comes in widely varying degrees in both directions, from overwhelmingly conclusive to barely worth considering. Eye-witness testimony lies somewhere in between, depending on a large number of factors. We could talk about evidence from a legalistic point of view, I suppose, but that wouldn't be a very interesting discussion for me.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The burden of proof in a free society is on the accuser. Religious people don't tell atheists to prove that there is no god. The evidence of god is equal for or against. It can't be proven that there is no god and it can't be proven that he exists. Hence, faith.
Do you kiss your mother with that smell emanating from your mouth?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It seems to me that, although they are popularly synonymous, using "evidence" and "proof" to have subtly different meanings in a conversation that is based, quite fundamentally, in epistemology is very reasonable. Co-opting the legal and scientific meanings for this setting is something useful. The definitions here: "A fact which contributes to proof or disproof" and "a body of facts which compel in a reasonable person belief or disbelief" are both required for the conversatioin. Borrowing words that already have these meanings within a certain, well-known context is not at all absurd.
On the topic of the OP, as an atheist, I remain somewhat agnostic. I think both Glenn and Rabbit make fair points. The testimony is not particularly strong evidence, but neither is the claim that fantastic. I don't think belief need be an either/or proposition.
As unsatisfying as it may be to some, I think we ought to follow the Mythbusters' lead* on this and call it "plausible".
*That is not to say that the Mythbusters have spoken on this issue, sorry about the ambiguity.
[ March 08, 2010, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I've heard, and I quote, religious people saying, "You can't prove there's no God!" to atheists. I mean that, a literal quote. Not kids, either-full grown adults.
It's enjoyable, though, how malanthrop so reliably trots out his Jamaican neighbors as a prop to shield his own racist statements. It's not enjoyable because it's new-plenty of racists do exactly the same thing, with a few words switched around. The enjoyable part is how he appears to think it's so new and unassailable.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: On the surface they are black, in reality they are regular hard working people.
:snort:
It's so horribly sad, really, that he's really trying to appear to be open minded and "color blind."
FYI, my neighbor looks like a Jew, but in reality he's a generous and worthwhile human being.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Oh lord, I did not realize he had actually said that (I've taken to sort of skimming his posts at best and that wasn't till the second paragraph).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
p.p.p.s. on the subject of the other points / views being made, I am not really disagreeing with it very much and it's not like my position isn't pedantic anyway, the sole exception being "the rather preposterous claim that there is no evidence at all." [of God]. Primarily, that's what I'm poking at.
quote:FYI, my neighbor looks like a Jew, but in reality he's a generous and worthwhile human being.
oh phew. it is a good thing you can point at your jewish neighbors to ensure we cannot think you are an anti-semite.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
*checks his sarcasmometer* Yep, it's a little wonky. Really oughta get that fixed one of these days.
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
]![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)