Inadmissable
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-11-2015, 03:41 PM
Inadmissable
Got to love Ambrose Bierce. I'm working my way through the Devil's Dictionary and this gem came to light-

Inadmissable, adj.

Not competent to be considered. Said of certain kinds of testimony which juries are supposed to be unfit to be entrusted with, and which judges, therefore, rule out, even of proceedings before themselves alone. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible because the person quoted was unsworn and is not before the court for examination; yet most momentous actions, military, political, commercial and of every other kind, are daily undertaken on hearsay evidence. There is no religion in the world that has any other basis than hearsay evidence. Revelation is hearsay evidence; that the Scriptures are the word of God we have only the testimony of men long dead whose identity is not clearly established and who are not known to have been sworn in any sense. Under the rules of evidence as they now exist in this country, no single assertion in the Bible has in its support any evidence admissible in a court of law. It cannot be proved that the battle of Blenheim ever was fought, that there was such as person as Julius Caesar, such an empire as Assyria.

But as records of courts of justice are admissible, it can easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 15 users Like Fireball's post
25-11-2015, 07:25 AM
RE: Inadmissable
I've been reading it too!

What are the odds that two people out of seven billion are reading the same book?

Laugh out load

Hug

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post
25-11-2015, 07:50 AM
RE: Inadmissable
Kind of makes the notion of swearing on the Bible before giving testimony in court even more ludicrous, doesn't it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2015, 08:38 AM
RE: Inadmissable
CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thinkerbelle's post
25-11-2015, 08:43 AM
RE: Inadmissable
Christians wish they had evidence of that quality, everything about Jesus was written by anonymous authors at least 40 years after the alleged incident, by biased followers of the religion.

When I was a Christian, I saw first-hand how one loon after another would assert god talked to them and then proceeded to convince people what they said was the truth, it was a three-ring circus of lunacy that fostered suspicion every time they opened their mouths.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2015, 10:36 AM
RE: Inadmissable
(25-11-2015 08:38 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

That's another good one, guffaw-worthy when I read it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2015, 10:58 AM
RE: Inadmissable
(24-11-2015 03:41 PM)Fireball Wrote:  Got to love Ambrose Bierce. I'm working my way through the Devil's Dictionary and this gem came to light-

Inadmissable, adj.

Not competent to be considered. Said of certain kinds of testimony which juries are supposed to be unfit to be entrusted with, and which judges, therefore, rule out, even of proceedings before themselves alone. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible because the person quoted was unsworn and is not before the court for examination; yet most momentous actions, military, political, commercial and of every other kind, are daily undertaken on hearsay evidence. There is no religion in the world that has any other basis than hearsay evidence. Revelation is hearsay evidence; that the Scriptures are the word of God we have only the testimony of men long dead whose identity is not clearly established and who are not known to have been sworn in any sense. Under the rules of evidence as they now exist in this country, no single assertion in the Bible has in its support any evidence admissible in a court of law. It cannot be proved that the battle of Blenheim ever was fought, that there was such as person as Julius Caesar, such an empire as Assyria.

But as records of courts of justice are admissible, it can easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.


You are absolutely right when you say that what is written in the bible is not legally admissible evidence of its own truth. That is to say that all written or spoken evidence in courts must be subject to cross-examination so if the person who said it or wrote it isn't in court to be cross-examined, and his or her credibility and reliability as a witness subject to scrutiny by the judge, that evidence is inadmissible.

However, that is a legalistic notion of what evidence and truth is.

There are other types of evidence such as objects which we find, like in archaeological digs which themselves say something to us. These are called "real evidence" and they don't need to have someone live at the time to produce them. Also, there is expert evidence which can be based on things other than personal observation. An expert might for instance, have a compelling theory which on some scientific basis, which he can explain, must show that a proposition is true about some fact.

For instance, if you take an old book, like the bible and you take some other old books, like history books, and you compare them and come up with some theory that they are written, one based on the other, because of similarities of their texts, then an expert in mathematics could produce evidence that those two books were written in a certain sequence or at the same time based on probability.

The finding of books, or objects in certain places, for instance, with the use of other books found in other places, in circumstances where their location, discovery and content shows that they can only have been written in a certain way or at a certain time can be the subject of evidence given by an expert.

Expert evidence is merely opinion of someone qualified in a certain field. It is commonly accepted in evidence in courts and people are convicted or found liable in cases on such evidence with serious consequences.

It isn't possible, therefore, to look only at live, oral evidence as the only kind of evidence which is admissible in court.

Also, legalistic proof is not the same as scientific proof and no one would rationally use the term "admissible" in discussing findings of a scientific researcher who has relied on findings from other researchers in journals or the results of tests which he didn't actually conduct himself.

I'm afraid it's all a bit of a red herring. If you had to rely on everything in life being conveyed to you by live, oral and admissible evidence, you wouldn't have any basis for doing anything in life, people would think you were strange and you would lose your job for being a dingbat.

It's not just things from antiquity that are without this kind of proof. Everything you read in the newspapers and see on TV and hear from anyone, unless you saw it yourself, is inadmissible in court because you aren't able to cross-examine the person who saw what is being discussed and cross-examine them under oath.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: Inadmissable
(25-11-2015 07:25 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  I've been reading it too!

What are the odds that two people out of seven billion are reading the same book?

Laugh out load

Hug
Goddidit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: Inadmissable
(25-11-2015 07:50 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Kind of makes the notion of swearing on the Bible before giving testimony in court even more ludicrous, doesn't it?

I dunno. I would think swearing fealty to a sovereign who can put you in Hell is a good motivation for telling truth.

Of course, the problem atheists have when they remove the ten commandments isn't only removing God-oaths but the commands to tell the truth, not adultery and not murder! Good job. Drinking Beverage

I swear on the truth of the Bible, Robby, that if you trust in what Jesus Christ did for us in a horrible death by torture on the cross and His resurrection, that you will inherit eternal life! Don't perish, don't fall short of the grace of God, but trust Him today! God bless you.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2015, 02:24 PM
RE: Inadmissable
(24-11-2015 03:41 PM)Fireball Wrote:  Got to love Ambrose Bierce. I'm working my way through the Devil's Dictionary and this gem came to light-

Inadmissable, adj.

Not competent to be considered. Said of certain kinds of testimony which juries are supposed to be unfit to be entrusted with, and which judges, therefore, rule out, even of proceedings before themselves alone. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible because the person quoted was unsworn and is not before the court for examination; yet most momentous actions, military, political, commercial and of every other kind, are daily undertaken on hearsay evidence. There is no religion in the world that has any other basis than hearsay evidence. Revelation is hearsay evidence; that the Scriptures are the word of God we have only the testimony of men long dead whose identity is not clearly established and who are not known to have been sworn in any sense. Under the rules of evidence as they now exist in this country, no single assertion in the Bible has in its support any evidence admissible in a court of law. It cannot be proved that the battle of Blenheim ever was fought, that there was such as person as Julius Caesar, such an empire as Assyria.

But as records of courts of justice are admissible, it can easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.
I will have to pick this book up tonight.

Might help me stay sane when the famdamily gets into town.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: