Oral history is generally reliable within a three-generation callback time period

[NiftyNiblick]

Asshat Zombie Fredo whatever-he-calls-himself-this-week calls other people dumb
while he steadfastly supports the corporate-oligarch party which gleefully screws him over.

Nobody proves him right as he claims.
He proves himself psychotic instead of sane,
idiotic instead of intelligent, and
monumentally foolish instead of wise.

Asshat can't run, pass, and kick,
but still proves himself a modern-day triple threat.
That takes up the sum of his resourcefulness, unfortunately.

 

[Bai Lan]

Asshat Zombie Fredo whatever-he-calls-himself-this-week calls other people dumb
while he steadfastly supports the corporate-oligarch party which gleefully screws him over.

Nobody proves him right as he claims.
He proves himself psychotic instead of sane,
idiotic instead of intelligent, and
monumentally foolish instead of wise.

Asshat can't run, pass, and kick,
but still proves himself a modern-day triple threat.
That takes up the sum of his resourcefulness, unfortunately.

pollicus 3:6

For even if thine talents grant you status of waterboy,

though art on the right team.

 

[Daylight63]

IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony.

SOURCE

As exhaustively indicated by hundreds of peer-reviewed social science publications and by the recent spate of exonerations based on DNA evidence, the memory and testimony of eyewitnesses is far from infallible. An eyewitness’ false identification of an innocent suspect as the perpetrator of a crime, or “eyewitness misidentification,” is the single greatest cause of wrongful conviction in the U.S. According to the Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law, eyewitness misidentification has played a significant role in over 75% of the more than 230 exonerations that have occurred to date based on DNA evidence.

(SOURCE)

Eyewitness testimony has always played an important role in the courtroom, helping judges to make decisions, so it is widely considered to be reliable. However, there is growing research evidence that the accuracy of the eyewitness testimony is influenced by many factors, including personal factors such as age and gender, as well as extraneous factors such as the way questions are asked, mental state of eyewitness, and environmental factors. So testimony is not entirely reliable, and erroneous evidence can adversely affect a judge’s decision in court, it can even lead to the conviction of innocent people.

(SOURCE)

Eyewitnesses identify more than 75,000 suspects each year in the United States and their testimonies are one of the most compelling and powerful forms of evidence for a jury. But, it’s not foolproof

(SOURCE)

 

[Trumpet]

THE AGENDA:

cypress is trying to keep christianity cultlike by making the reality of miracles a debate point, instead of teaching the golden rule.

A sacred sermon from the wacky preacher.

 

[Trumpet]

there are.

there are new ones on the internet everyday.

you fucktoids ignore it, or denigrate the witness.

so don't tell me about your respect for eyewitnesses, garbage pail kid.

You might consider getting off the drugs.

 

[Bai Lan]

A sacred sermon from the wacky preacher.

Bless you my child, now go forth and eat a bag of dicks.

 

[Trumpet]

Bless you my child, now go forth and eat a bag of dicks.

You are strange.

 

[dancindave]

A sacred sermon from the wacky preacher.

So it goes in Christian Nation SCOTUS Bicentennial Fourth Reich July not so mater race not so master plan……

 

[Cypress]

THE AGENDA:

cypress is trying to keep christianity cultlike by making the reality of miracles a debate point

Everyone, including atheists and agnostics believe in miracles, just different kinds of miracles.

 

[Daylight63]

Everyone, including atheists and agnostics believe in miracles, just different kinds of miracles.

What "miracle" do I, as an atheist, believe in?

Go ahead, take a stab. You'll be wrong, but it'll be fun to show you wrong yet again.

 

[Bai Lan]

Everyone, including atheists and agnostics believe in miracles, just different kinds of miracles.

maybe yes, maybe not.

none of that informs how we should treat each other.

the golden rule addresses just that, and you ignore it.


you suck as a human.

 

[Cypress]

What "miracle" do I, as an atheist, believe in?

Go ahead, take a stab. You'll be wrong, but it'll be fun to show you wrong yet again.

"Again". You had to abandon the last thread after I showed you that your own source supported me, lol.


Easy. These are the four significant miracles* atheists believe in.

1) Matter and energy come from nothing.
2) Mathematical order and the organizing laws of physics come from nothing.
3) Reason comes from non-reason.
4) Life comes from non-life.

There are no adequate scientific explanations for any of those. And there very well might not ever be.
Yes, people have wild ass guesses, speculations, ideas, conjectures. But that's all there is. There is no adequate empirical explanation.


* "A miracle is an event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and accordingly gets attributed to some supernatural or preternatural cause."
- wikipedia

 

[Bai Lan]

"Again". You had to abandon the last thread after I showed you that your own source supported me, lol.


Easy. These are the four significant miracles* atheists believe in.

1) Matter and energy come from nothing.
2) Mathematical order and the organizing laws of physics come from nothing.
3) Reason comes from non-reason.
4) Life comes from non-life.

There are no adequate scientific explanations for any of those. And there very well might not ever be.
Yes, people have wild ass guesses, speculations, ideas, conjectures. But that's all there is. There is no adequate empirical explanation.


* "A miracle is an event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and accordingly gets attributed to some supernatural or preternatural cause."
- wikipedia

but you're still an idiot on morality.

on purpose.

 

[Daylight63]

This is going to be good. I'll get to the logic at the end

Easy. These are the four significant miracles* atheists believe in.

1) Matter and energy come from nothing.

Hmmm, interesting. How do you know that I believe that?

2) Mathematical order and the organizing laws of physics come from nothing.

Again, how do you know that I believe that?

3) Reason comes from non-reason.

HOw do you know I believe that?

4) Life comes from non-life.

That's a no-brainer. That's the most likely scientific explanation. Unless you think life is a miracle. That would be hilarious.

There are no adequate scientific explanations for any of those. And there very well might not ever be.

Well, as usual in science you are 100% wrong on the last point about the origin of life.

* "A miracle is an event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and accordingly gets attributed to some supernatural or preternatural cause."
- wikipedia

Wikipedia as usual. LOL


Now for the logic behind my points: I don't have a "belief" as to the origin of the universe. Just none. It exists is all I know and maybe (as you indicated) all I can ever know.

But I don't consider belief in the presence of something that exists to be a "miracle".

What your error is is that you assume that since YOU have a belief and you cannot imagine someone lacking a belief that you assume all others have beliefs as you do.

I don't know how the universe came into being. All I know is that I am here in the universe.


So, no, I (and many other atheists) don't have "beliefs". Just because you do doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

[Daylight63]

"Again". You had to abandon the last thread after I showed you that your own source supported me, lol.

^^^^Always carrying around his grudge.

 

[Daylight63]

but you're still an idiot on morality.

I think you are being overly limiting on Cy. I'm sure he's ignorant on a very large number of things.

 

[Cypress]

This is going to be good. I'll get to the logic at the end




Hmmm, interesting. How do you know that I believe that?




Again, how do you know that I believe that?



HOw do you know I believe that?



That's a no-brainer. That's the most likely scientific explanation. Unless you think life is a miracle. That would be hilarious.



Well, as usual in science you are 100% wrong on the last point about the origin of life.




Wikipedia as usual. LOL


Now for the logic behind my points: I don't have a "belief" as to the origin of the universe. Just none. It exists is all I know and maybe (as you indicated) all I can ever know.

But I don't consider belief in the presence of something that exists to be a "miracle".

What your error is is that you assume that since YOU have a belief and you cannot imagine someone lacking a belief that you assume all others have beliefs as you do.

I don't know how the universe came into being. All I know is that I am here in the universe.


So, no, I (and many other atheists) don't have "beliefs". Just because you do doesn't mean everyone else does.

^^^ Nothing even approaching an adequate scientific explanation for the four primary atheist miracles - just an abiding faith that test tubes, microscopes, and mass spectrometers will have the answer. And this itself presupposes that everything in the universe is supposed to be rationally intelligible, yet another article of faith.

I don't have enough faith to be a devout Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

But I also don't have the faith required to be an atheist.

 

[Daylight63]

^^^ Nothing even approaching an adequate scientific explanation for the four primary atheist miracles - just an abiding faith that test tubes, microscopes, and mass spectrometers will have the answer. And this itself presupposes that everything in the universe is supposed to be rationally intelligible, yet another article of faith.

I don't have enough faith to be a devout Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

But I also don't have the faith required to be an atheist.

Thanks for admitting that you can't address my point thus proving your original point invalid.

That was easy. thanks!

 

[Daylight63]

But I also don't have the faith required to be an atheist.

^^^^Standard claim made by religious people all over the world. Shows an astounding lack of understanding of atheism.

I'm curious why you are so unfamiliar with all of atheism and that all you know about is the cartoon view of one sub-type.

I thought you were always telling people how smart you are and how well read you are. Maybe you should apply yourself to this topic.

 

[Bai Lan]

I think you are being overly limiting on Cy. I'm sure he's ignorant on a very large number of things.

i stand corrected.