Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
A+ 10/10 etc etc...
I don't have any care for religion and I don't subscribe to the worship of anything natural or supernatural. Supernatural anything is a claim made by humans and I hold any human who makes these claims responsible for proving their claims. But it's apparent that that wont happen anytime soon. Nothing irrational about that. I simply just don't have an interest.
"Nothing irrational about that. I simply just don't have an interest."
Sorry fella, but what you just wrote is irrational. You claim you don't have an interest, in the very thing you were interested enough to comment on.
You don't understand what rationality is.
Incorrect. I replied to your comment about atheism being irrational. Sorry fella, but that's a moot point. Try again.
I know you replied to my comment. Your reply was irrational, because you said you don't have an interest, when you clearly do, because you made a reply.
I have an interest to speak on rationality. Then... instead of leaving you with that, I gave a rather brief summary on the relevant topic of why I don't care for religion because again, the topic is relevant to this thread. This proves in no way, shape, or form that I am irrational.
I dont know if you've noticed, but Athiests are normally treated unfairly for nothing but having a different POV. You must not understand the concept of probability If you think that I'll never have to speak out against Theism at all in my lifetime.
What is irrational, is expecting folks like myself to completely boycott speaking or thinking of topics JUST BECAUSE they don't care for said topic unless prompted.
Here’s an interesting article:
Do I Need Scientific, Forensic Evidence to Prove Christianity Is True?
J. Warner March 9, 2015 Nature of Evidence, Writings 5,974 Views
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Do I Need Scientific, Forensic Evidence to Prove Christianity Is TrueThe relationship between science and faith continues to be hotly debated in our culture today. Eric Metaxas’ recent viral Wall Street Journal article, “Is Science Leading Us to God?” certainly reignited the discussion. His brief description of the teleological, fine-tuning parameters of the universe became the most-read online article the Journal has ever published. Even more recently, CNN has now begun a six-part series entitled, “Finding Jesus”. This mini-series seeks to discover “fascinating new insights into the historical Jesus, utilizing the latest scientific techniques and archaeological research”. The show examines six ancient relics of Christianity to see if “today’s technology can prove their authenticity.” In an empiricist culture deeply enthralled with scientific discovery and fascinated by shows like CSI, Cold-Case and Forensic Files, I’m not surprised by the demand for physical, scientific, forensic evidence. But as a cold-case detective with over twenty-five years of investigative experience, I’m here to tell you a simple truth: we don’t need any evidence of this nature to make a criminal case, and we don’t need scientific, forensic evidence to prove Christianity either.
Would it be nice to have scientific, physical evidence? Absolutely. When we first formed our cold-case unit, I retrieved over thirty unsolved cases from our homicide vault and sifted through each file, hoping to find one or two we could solve quickly with some piece of DNA or other form of scientific evidence. After all, our forensic technology has improved dramatically over the years, and I hoped to capitalize on this advancement to solve one or two of these cases quickly (to demonstrate the value of our new investigative team). Alas, I couldn’t find a single case of this nature. My partner and I were initially disappointed. But over the next fifteen years, we became the most active and successful cold-case team in Los Angeles County, solving more consecutive cases and appearing more times on Dateline than any other investigative team. And none of our cases benefited significantly from scientific evidence.
Most people don’t understand the broad categories of evidence used in criminal trials. As it turns out, evidence falls into one of two categories: direct and indirect. Direct evidence is simply eyewitness testimony. Indirect evidence (also known as circumstantial evidence) is everything else. Scientific evidence is an important form of circumstantial evidence, and I would certainly have welcomed evidence of this nature over the years (it sure would have made my job easier). But I’ve never been this lucky. In fact, I’ve investigated cases lacking any physical evidence at all. In one case, the murderer killed his wife and claimed she abandoned her family. He filed a bogus missing persons report and our agency initially believed him. Sadly, no one worked the case as a homicide for the first six years. By the time we re-opened it as a homicide case, the murderer had remarried and moved from the house where he killed our victim. We had no crime scene to investigate and not a single piece of scientific evidence.
When the case went to trial, the jury faced a number of unanswered questions: When precisely did he kill her? How did he kill her? What did he do with her body? How did he move her car so it would look like she abandoned her family? We couldn’t answer any of these questions and we didn’t have a single piece of physical evidence (let alone scientific evidence). But the jury only took four hours to find our defendant guilty (he later confessed to the murder at his sentencing hearing). That case strengthened my understanding of the nature and role of evidence and the luxury of scientific corroboration. It’s nice when you have it, but you don’t really need it. And when it comes to cold-cases you don’t often have this evidential luxury (there’s a reason these cases are cold, after all). The vast majority of my cases are constructed from a collection of seemingly meaningless statements and behaviors; stuff you might not even think was important at the time of the crime. But when these small indicators are assembled cumulatively and examined against the backdrop of the crime, little things become big evidence.
This is by far a more difficult way to build a case. Sometimes a single piece of scientific, forensic evidence can be very compelling, and in an impatient culture conditioned for brevity and 140 character communication, it’s not surprising jurors might prefer the shortest possible trial. Cases made by dramatic scientific evidence are definitely appealing. But real life is different than what you’ve been watching on television and at the movies. Making a case for anything in the past (whether it’s a murder or some other historical event) is often messy and complicated. It takes time. I’ve had cases that took over five years to put together and another five to bring to trial (luckily we’re able to work more than one case at a time). Scientific cases may be compelling, but in my experience, they are incredibly rare.
So I’m not surprised (given the antiquity of the Biblical events) we can’t make a case from scientific, forensic evidence. In fact, I wouldn’t expect us to be able to do this, any more than I expect to make a scientific case as a cold-case detective. That’s alright with me; I’ve seen many juries arrive confidently at the correct decision with no scientific evidence at all. We don’t need evidence of this nature to make a criminal case, and we don’t need scientific, forensic evidence to prove Christianity either.
J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity
That's the best you can do AJ? Really? We don't need no stinkin evidence?
Five minutes ago, i still looked at you as an annoying troll for jesus...now I am saddened, as I can see you are deluded.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch...get well soon.
1) The criminal justice system and juries are frequently wrong in their conclusions.
2) Criminal trials seldom investigate supernatural claims precisely because there is no tangible or empirical evidence to examine.
Why do you think it is immoral to torture children?
"because there is no tangible or empirical evidence to examine."
Thank you for providing an example that illustrates my point.
"because there is no tangible or empirical evidence to examine."
Thank you for providing an example that illustrates my point."
It doesn't illustrate your point, you just don't understand what it means and are determined not to acknowledge any fact you don't like.
All objective facts are unevidenced at some point. That is axiomatic. It is simply prudent to withhold belief until they either are properly evidenced or are falsified. If they're unfalsifiable beliefs then I remain an agnostic, but still withhold belief because to me it seems irrational to believe any claim we can't evidence. This does not mean I make an unevidenced contrary claim as you do, as this makes your position no different to the one you're opposing.
I'm not convinced you're being entirely serious either.
Interesting and a little disturbing how determined it seems this officer of the law was to declare someone, anyone, guilty of a cold case murder. I got the impression that in the absence of any evidence he was chasing his own instincts and prejudices. He mentions the one case where the accused eventually confessed, but did all of them do so or did they continue to plead their innocence being led off to prison? He may have got his man at times, but did he get the actual guilty person every time? If I were really interested I'd want to read his career history before I felt comfortable commenting, i.e. I am not a cop but I would still need some evidence to consider. I have seen some CSI shows but none of them reflect reality.
Persuading "twelve good men (and women) and true" of the guilt of an accused in the rarefied environment of a court room is nothing like convincing a non believer in the existence of a supernatural deity.
Wallace said "We don’t need scientific, forensic evidence to prove Christianity", but this says nothing about the veracity of christian claims, as he also stated, "Making a case for anything in the past (whether it’s a murder or some other historical event) is often messy and complicated. (more so for establishing, beyond even reasonable doubt, an entire miracle based cosmology centred on an omnipotent disembodied mind outside time and space) It takes time." Christians, Jews and Muslims have had a lot of time and haven't really come up with anything like an open and shut case on their beliefs.
Thanks for the read AJ.
How does this "investigator" know the correct decision ahead of time? If the verdict had been "Not Guilty" would that have been the "correct decision'? Hmmm...I would be inclined (If I was a lawyer) to appeal every single case this man investigated.
Secondly Historical Investigation does not work like this investigator, modern History demands a clear view and open mind, unlike theology or a Police Investigation (although the Police should be open, they mostly are not). He clearly is working under the "Prime Suspect Modus" what Historians call a Presuppositionalist position. Indeed the way that many theologians still work today in a vain attempt to prove their faith(s) correct.
The Historical Method is as follows (especially Graeco Roman History)
“Depending on the degree of importance of knowing the truth of something we make sure we are being told the truth by checking such things as:
1>Who is telling us this?
2>How do I know if I can trust them?
3>Can their claims be confirmed somehow?”
4>How do I know if this document is genuine?
on points 2 and 3> we use archeology, other written sources, inscriptions, cartology, modern ground probes, aerial photography, topography, geography, biology, In fact any discipline that could be used to confirm (or deny) the claim presented.
And to date and I will repeat:“there is no contemporary evidence for the Jesus figure as described in the gospels. None"
If you want to believe or have faith in a Jesus figure as described in the gospels then by all means feel free, but please do not dress it up as a reliable history based conclusion.
That some people may take this as a starting point to mythicise the Jesus figure is understandable, others may deny the existence. Absence of evidence can, indeed, be 'evidence of absence.' However I prefer the Scottish verdict in Law ”Not Proven”. “
(Edit to include point 2)
Old man shouts, do you have training or experience in criminal investigation or criminal law? Investigation of an event that occurred in the past is largely the same independent of the time at which the event occurred. Criminal investigations are dependent on reliable evidence that is verifiable.
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 16:10 AJ777 "We don’t need evidence of this nature to make a criminal case, and we don’t need scientific, forensic evidence to prove Christianity either."
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 17:09 AJ77 "Criminal investigations are dependent on reliable evidence that is verifiable."
Barely an hour and you have roundly contradicted yourself.
I live in a jurisdiction that still uses the 19th Century method of "Prime Suspect". That is the Police investigators decide who most likely did it and then build a case (often ignoring contrary evidence).
This has resulted in catastrophic miscarriages of justice, payments of millions of dollars in compensation, yet our Police stick mulishly with the method although the younger members.and most imported members of the Force are simply ignoring their seniors and using a method that is less likely to rebound on them.
The more modern and enlightened method is that of 'Elimination' where everyone is suspect until eliminated from the enquiry . Much more reliable method. It is now mandated in all civilised Police Units around the world with much more convincing results.
Tell that to those who were serving life sentences and on Death Row, or were hung only to be later exonerated when evidence concealed in earlier investigations came to light.
My you do live in la la land do you not.
Old man shouts, do you have practical hands on experience in law enforcement or criminal law. If not, why are you qualified to criticize those who risk their lives to protect you?
@AJ777 Re: Law enforcement experience
Yooooo-hoooooo!...*waving*... Hi. We are in my territory now. I have twenty years of patrol in a very large, high crime rate city under my belt. How much experience do YOU have?
I was just about to flag you in this one...I don't know how many toes he has left but it can't be many...Now Tonto..you attack the front and I will...uh...no... aha...yes have a little snooze. (Actually sneaks oft to vent all the laughter he had been holding in)
Kudos, talk about bringing a gun to a knife fight. The metaphor might have been written with that post in mind.
AJ777, you wrote, “Old man shouts, do you have practical hands on experience in law enforcement or criminal law. If not, why are you qualified to criticize those who risk their lives to protect you?”
EVERYONE is ‘qualified’ to criticize LE personnel! That is not saying that all LE personnel are errant. LE agencies are by the people and for the people, therefore, the people get to scrutinize them to their hearts’ content.
And, btw, in case you want to dis my option in the matter... I spent over a decade getting your ‘practical hands on experience’ in LE...not as long as TM, but I did spend my fair share of time wrangling bad guys.
By that logic is everyone qualified to criticize a brain surgeons technique in implanting devices?
I think that’s a silly question and comparison so my answer is, it depends on the device.
AJ777: "By that logic is everyone qualified to criticize a brain surgeons technique in implanting devices?"
Do you think a brain surgeon should be beyond criticism?
If a surgeon's patients die at a far higher rate than average, do I have to get a medical degree before I am allowed to point it out?
What a strange world you see.
So a 5 star Michelin chef serves a meal that you think is awful, but you wouldn't complain because you're not a sufficiently qualified chef?
If your car engine seizes hours after an oil change you can't criticise the mechanic as your not qualified, right?
Bizarre...What you're doing is creating an appeal to authority fallacy. Either a criticism has objective validity or it does not, who makes it and who it is aimed at is irrelevant to this...
Changing the subject AJ777?
What police investigators do is not a secret or "special". Anyone can learn their methods and thus anyone can criticize improper investigations.
So you want to live in a society where you cannot question laws or law enforcement? There are words for that : Police State.
Something your Jesus seemed to be dead against when it was the Romans in charge...or is support of a Police State part of your weird Protestant Cult?
You really are a numpty when you come out with stuff like that. What do you do? Draw a huge target on your foot, get a friend to make sure you are not holding the gun the wrong way round and then pull the trigger?
I am a reasonably well educated citizen of two countries and, as such, I have the legal, moral and ethical right to comment on ALL parts of government. It is called Civic Responsibility You should try it....
Tin-man, ok. You weren’t criticizing police possibly because of that experience. You have actual expertise in that area. Good for you. Do you support criticism of law enforcement by those that have no experience in the field?
@AJ777 Re: "Do you support criticism of law enforcement by those that have no experience in the field?"
Well, by golly. That is actually a damn good question, AJ. I'm even going to set aside my smart-ass sarcasm for a few moments to address it, as that is one very important part of my life I have always taken very seriously. Plus, you asked in a reasonable manner; therefore, I shall answer in kind. Unfortunately, the answer is going to be rather lengthy, and I do not have time to fully explain it all at the moment. I just wanted to let you know real quick that I do like that question, and I will do my best to answer it for you sometime tomorrow. Seriously and sincerely. I actually do like that question. Makes me think.
@AJ777 Re: "Do you support criticism of law enforcement by those that have no experience in the field?" (Follow-up)
Okay, I’m back. While on the surface your question seems fairly simple, requiring a fairly simple and straightforward answer, I’m afraid it is a bit more… ummm… “involved” than that. Now, from the looks of it, I see a few folks have already mentioned a couple of things I was going to say. One of the more important points is, “Law Enforcement is put in place BY the people FOR the people.” Law enforcement agencies and the officers within them are there to “Serve and Protect” the citizens within their respective jurisdictions. Moreover, the funding for those agencies/officers is paid for BY those very citizens. Therefore, in that respect, I firmly believe citizens have every right to “criticize” the performance of their respective law enforcement agencies. “Why?” you may ask. Simple. Because having served in law enforcement for a major portion of my life, I am well aware of how much “power” an individual officer wields in the performance of his/her duties. (And believe me, it is considerable.) With that in mind, to quote the uncle of a famous superhero, “With great power comes great responsibility.” And – obviously – police officers are not superheroes. They are humans. Period. Simply ordinary men and women, and most of them are just trying to make an honest, decent living and maybe help a few people along the way. Are there some bad apples out there? Absolutely. I have even worked with a few. Thankfully, however, they are very rare creatures. Was I always the perfect officer always making the perfect, unbiased decisions every single day out on the streets? Hell no! I wish! I look back on some of the mistakes I made over the years and cannot help but cringe at my own stupidity. But I tried my best to learn from my mistakes so that I would not repeat them. Moreover (and more importantly), I did my best not to allow that vast power I had at my disposal go to my head. Fortunately for me, there were several factors that helped me keep my feet on the ground. But do you want to know what the one major factor was? It was because no matter how much power I had, that power was not autonomous. It was a power that was ultimately controlled by the people in the areas I worked. They held the reins. And if I or any other officer were to have ever abused our powers to such a degree that adversely disrupted the overall welfare of a community, then our asses would be hung out to dry and our lives would have been totally ruined. And as far as I am concerned, that is exactly how it should be.
Anyway, with all that being said, I rather get the feeling your question was likely focused on an individual officer’s actions during a high-stress situation such as a fatal shooting incident. Well, THAT, my friend, is another can of worms altogether. I could easily write an entire book on that subject alone, and possibly even host an all day seminar on the subject. Therefore, trying to explain everything involved in that on a site like this with any amount of reasonable accuracy would be… well… rather foolish on my part. So, let’s just stick with the more “general” concept of average citizens being allowed to “criticize” law enforcement as a whole. As I said above, police are simply humans. And no matter how good, honest, and sincere a human may be, he/she is still subject to the enticing influences of being given a large amount of power. And that is why they MUST BE held accountable for their actions by the citizens they are entrusted to serve and protect. After all, the citizens are the ones paying for them, right?