Quote of the day: Subjective evidence through personal experience doesn't equal evidence.?

A better way of saying that would be "Subjective evidence through personal experience doesn't equal PROOF."

There is a difference between Evidence and Proof.

Proof comes from Evidence, but not all Evidence leads to Proof. It is only when the preponderance of the available evidence leads to one, and only one, conclusion, that final proof is gained.

In a court of law, personal testimony and eye witness statements is trumped by physical evidence. In science evidence what can be tested and retested and have consistent results regardless of whom is conducting the test. The methodology needs to be sound and applicable, so that the subjective element can be removed and objective n impartial findings only are accepted. Its just not faith based.

What happens when your personal experience differs form my personal experience? Both of us on a faith level can and are true for ourselves - but we would both be wrong if we tried to impose our personal subjective belief as correct for another person.

You seem ignorant of the fallibility of eyewitness testimony under abstract or stressful circumstances. SO please let me honestly set the record straight for you:

Personal evidence is only evidence to the individual who believes the claim they are making. It is NOT a justification for anyone else to believe it as well. It ONLY, at most, justification for you alone to believe in that thing. The reason is that we know that other individuals have the ability to be deluded. We also know that we ourselves have the ability to misapprehend an observation in front of our eyes. However, if we ourselves are the one making an observation, we can either believe it or conclude that we are under a misapprehension, depending on which scenario seems more likely given all information available to date.

But when someone else just claims some random thing and says that they have proof, but it was only proven to them specifically, then that is not a good argument as far as convincing anyone else other than themselves. Even if it is true what they are saying, other people who are listening are not obligated to believe until they themselves have the same evidence revealed to them. That is why objectively verifiable evidence is more valuable to the human race in general than personal revelation alone. And that is why science has progressed so much and why religion is never going anywhere.

Put simply, "I have proof but can't show it to you" is not a good way of convincing anyone of anything. Showing them the proof itself is the better way. That way, they can understand your position fully. Truths that are revealed to only one person are rather useless and a god that uses that kind of method would be stupid.

Example: A woman kills someone because GOD told her through her dream, and uses that in court.

Personal experience so do you understand the sentence now.

Another Example: Well I just fell so spirtual when I read the bible it's just so great. I know God wrote this becuase I feel it.

Try reading other sources of information about atheism that is not just biased by christians and try to read it with an open mind.

Actually, eye witness testimony is rarely counted as substantial evidence for conviction in a courtroom today so your point is virtually invalid. Physical evidence always supersedes witness "evidence"

Subjective reality through personal delusions doesn't equal evidence.

Me telling you that a purple space-alien just ran through my house doesn't make it true.

Believe what you want. I think they could have been just saying to prove something as big as a god existing then you need something very concrete and extraordinary.

But, also I don't know what your 'personal expierence' was so I can only say but so much.

A lot of the atheists' reasoning is circular, such as:

There is no absolute truth, absolutely.

You are right, all evidence comes from personal experience, unless you are asking a dog...

A person reads something, writes something, sees something, hears something, etc.

Because it's referring to anecdotal evidence, which is subjective, and can't be peer reviewed.

Also: This should be in Phil., not R&S

Personal experience is the highest quality evidence available.

Atheists can be idiots and not trust their own eyes and ears, but I trust mine.