Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 2 years ago

If atheists won't believe in anything without evidence, does that mean they believe OJ Simpson didn't kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman?

Because technically, there was no evidence that he did that.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    2 years ago

    Court room evidence is slightly different from scientific evidence. Court room evidence just needs to be enough for reasonable doubt--which doesn't always imply being not guilty. Which was the case with OJ Simpson. Scientific evidence in contrast goes further to actually prove something.

  • 2 years ago

    the gloves were one piece of evidence uses. Evidence is evidence regardless of the results it leads you to.

  • 2 years ago

    No, not at all. First, you're comparing apples to oranges. It's not an extraordinary claim to make a murder accusation, while the existence of gods who magically control our lives *is* and extraordinary claim. So your claim that God exists requires extraordinary evidence, while even the most stringent criminal courtroom standard is for the juror to be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt, which the Simpson jury apparently couldn't reach. But here's the salient point: even if I had been on that jury and had voted to acquit, that wouldn't mean I though Simpson was innocent, only that we couldn't find him guilty. Courtrooms don't determine innocence, only guilt. Simpson wasn't found innocent in his criminal trial, he was found not guilty. There's all the difference in the world between the two.

    .

    <Because technically, there was no evidence that he did that.> Rubbish; pure, unadulterated rubbish. Even more to the point, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that the civil trial found Simpson guilty, because there *was* sufficient evidence to establish a preponderance of guilt. That's another point on which courtroom analogies fail, besides the 'innocent' vs 'not guilty' point--standards of evidence differ between criminal and civil courts. There was a preponderance of evidence of his guilt, it's just the criminal trial that somehow fell short.

    .

    So, can you see now how intellectually dishonest you're being? Maybe you don't realize it, or maybe you do, but it's dishonesty nevertheless.

    .

    .

  • Archer
    Lv 7
    2 years ago

    There was evidence that he did but not beyond a shadow of a doubt. You don't understand much about the judicial system. You don't even know what a 'belief' is for there is no evidence to a belief.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 2 years ago

    I suspect he might have been the killer, but you're right, the evidence is not conclusive, and the courts already decided the issue.

  • Mike
    Lv 7
    2 years ago

    Atheists don't believe any gods exist - how does that very simple definition have anything to do with an old court case in the US?

  • Bill-M
    Lv 7
    2 years ago

    Don't assume things about Atheists and their beliefs. Not believing in god or religion has nothing to do with your example of OJ. Besides OJ did kill them. There is lots of evidence. The Jury just did not see it.

  • 2 years ago

    Oh...there was evidence. The cops just f****ed it up

  • Anonymous
    2 years ago

    they believe in things that stimulate them which makes them suckers for opportunistic sex

  • 2 years ago

    How was there technically no evidence? The prosecution had a bunch of evidence.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.