thebeave

Question to Theists: Let’s suppose I was wrongly accused of a serious, violent crime and you (a theist, perhaps a fundamentalist) were picked as a juror for my case. There is ZERO physical evidence against me and in fact, there is a clear trail of evidence pointing to another perpetrator altogether. The only reason I stand accused at all is because of heresay from a person of questionable reliability and credibility who was not even around when the crime took place. My question to you is: Could I count on you to start at ground zero and objectively and critically evaluate the evidence (and lack thereof) and find me "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" of the crime in question? Or would you first accept the word of the unreliable "witness" as true and create twisted leaps of logic and bizzare, outlandish scenarios in order to fit me into the scene of the crime?

Most of you, I think (I hope anyway) would evaluate the evidence (and/or lack thereof) and do the right thing by finding me "not guilty". Yet, I do have to ask because you do not apply the same standards to your own personal life. You start out first believing in the claims of the ancient "witness" (e.g. Jesus, Mohmammed (uh,oh… here comes a fatwa), Joseph Smith, the Bible, etc), and then try, in sometimes amusing and pathetic desperation, to twist, massage and force fit the real world data to the "witness"’s claims, rather than the other way around. For example, issues like the Biblical account of Creation, Noah’s Ark, Jesus’s walking on water, His resurrection and hundreds of other religious myths are taken as fact first, and the lack of evidence or even strong, contradictory evidence against these scenarios are ignored or poo-poo’d away. Even more troubling to me, it seems many strong theists are even proud of their stance of hearsay over known facts.

Let’s turn the table around. Same exact case, except now you (or a loved one) stand wrongly accused of a violent crime, and a jury is being picked. The rest of your (or your loved ones) life is at stake. Who do you want to be picked to serve? A logical, critical thinker such as an atheist, who only focuses on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand, or someone whose unsupported beliefs take precedent over facts and evidence, such as a theist?

Think about it.

P.S. As I’m finishing writing this, I’m thinking of the parallels between my thoughts here, and the O.J. Simpson murder case. It seems to me that the fervent, hard core O.J. fans (which includes the jury evidently) had decided that their life long hero and seemingly "nice guy messiah" (O.J.) couldn’t possibly be lying about having committed such a heinous crime. After all, he was so famous, handsome, charismatic and larger than life. So that meant the overwhelming crime scene evidence had to be wrong somehow. So, there just HAD to be some grand conspiracy by nefarious L.A. cops. Or maybe that DNA jazz isn’t as reliable as scientists say it is. Allegiance to the "messiah" comes first. Facts come in a distant second.

seebs

Why should I apply those standards to everything? I believe almost everything my wife says without "proof", because I know her to be honest, and because believing her does not pose a high risk of an innocent person being locked up for a crime he didn't commit.

In my case, I am unaware of any facts or evidence which contradict my opinions. I have changed my opinions many times based on evidence.

Which person would you rather have - one who will accept an explanation that is unlike explanations he's never seen, or one who, never having seen an alibi like yours, dismisses it as an 'extraordinary claim'?

The game plays both ways; either way, it strikes me as silly.

happyboy

ciritical thinking and religious belief don't mix very well. illogical, circular reasoning and religious belief DO work well together.

happyboy

seebs

Gotta love them stereotypes.

I know an awful lot of religious scientists and programmers, and I know some very illogical and circular thinkers among the atheist crowd.

Curiously, I know a lot of fundies who believe that atheism is a result of "lack of critical thinking ability".

Same room, different filter.

pug846

Yes, clearly theists are substantially different from us “enlightened” atheists. It’s amazing they are able to get to their jobs each morning.

seebs

Yes. It's certainly a good thing I have atheists to tell me how the magic demon box works, or I'd *never* be able to use a computer!

(This joke is only funny if you know my RL persona, but a casual web search on "seebs" will probably explain it.)

wildernesse

magic demon box. . .where? eeks! Dang, I guess it's already got me.

I thought this was going to be a thread about the terrorist case in NY, where now they know that two jurors sought advice on the case from their religious leaders. (Rips the lid off of this can of worms)

In this case, they sought help in the sentencing phase and not with the evidence. I think that theists and atheists can be excellent jurors if they play by the rules. And I think that most people can play by the rules, no matter what they believe.

--tibac

Amie

I would want whoever could be objective regardless of any theistic beliefs or lack of.

I did not like how the question was asked.

ybnormal

Yeah, right! Xians have exhibited such a fine respect for man's laws while helping to hide the thousands involved with the child molesting priests over the past half century. Yeah, we should feel free to just turn the whole of our justice system over to the fine catholics and their other xians cohorts in this country.

Look... the test for this particular issue of xian integrity on a jury is all too simple. All these xians who willingly and openly state that their god's laws are more important, and rightfully above man's laws, have already warned us that we should expect NO personal integrity from them on their decisions regarding our laws and our Constitution.

All you have to do is listen to precisely what the xians have said, and then believe them. There it is!

As for the fictional scenario here, I would trust most any xians to do exactly what I see them do all the time, including on this site, and that is to aid their fellow xians and the facts be damned. One only need review the recent happenings on the C-SS forum for evidence of that. A plea was even offered to theists here for the purpose of a factually fair hearing, but... So, like I said, there it is!

Kassiana

Your assumptions are just amazing here.

TB:
You start out first believing in the claims of the ancient "witness" (e.g. Jesus, Mohmammed (uh,oh… here comes a fatwa), Joseph Smith, the Bible, etc), and then try, in sometimes amusing and pathetic desperation, to twist, massage and force fit the real world data to the "witness"’s claims, rather than the other way around.

Kass:
Really? I thought we Pagans didn't believe in claims of ancient witnesses and then try to fit real world data into ancient claims. What are these ancient witnesses we believe in, again? because I believe in none, myself. I believe in the witness I have personally experienced.

And yes, I am a theistic believer. Sorry to not fit into your stereotype.