OP's ?: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

A: Only if you want others to take it seriously. For your own amusement, have it your way.

---

(July 26, 2017 at 6:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 26, 2017 at 5:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I wouldn't go using the words "blind spot" considering the age of the book of mythology you defend.

Actually, claiming that something is false because it is old, or better because it is new; is a fallacy.

To exclaim "Oh, yeah right - not likely"  isn't quite the same thing as claiming it is false.  In general, your shit is bullshit if you're talking about shit no one can see, touch or measure and you take no responsibility for establishing its bonafides.

(July 26, 2017 at 6:51 pm)Whateverist Wrote: OP's ?: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

A: Only if you want others to take it seriously.  For your own amusement, have it your way.

---

(July 26, 2017 at 6:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Actually, claiming that something is false because it is old, or better because it is new; is a fallacy.

To exclaim "Oh, yeah right - not likely"  isn't quite the same thing as claiming it is false.  In general, your shit is bullshit if you're talking about shit no one can see, touch or measure and you take no responsibility for establishing its bonafides.

I wish he had bonafides, like pork or beef that falls off the bonafides. But all I am getting are offerings of unicorn ribs.

We have evidence in Scripture of Jesus being crucified on Good Friday.

We also have evidence in Scripture of Jesus being crucified on Maundy Thursday.


So SteveII, do YOU have any extraordinary evidence Jesus was NOT crucified TWICE?????????

(July 26, 2017 at 6:51 pm)Whateverist Wrote: OP's ?: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

A: Only if you want others to take it seriously. For your own amusement, have it your way.

---

(July 26, 2017 at 6:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Actually, claiming that something is false because it is old, or better because it is new; is a fallacy.

To exclaim "Oh, yeah right - not likely"  isn't quite the same thing as claiming it is false.  In general, your shit is bullshit if you're talking about shit no one can see, touch or measure and you take no responsibility for establishing its bonafides.

No that is the argument from incredulity. I was talking about the reasoning of because it's old which was in response to "considering the age of the book of mythology".

Now if you are not trying to make a case against the thing thing in question, but just commenting on your subjective mental state that is fine. And I agree, we shouldn't just accept everything without reason.... however if you are doing so for irrational and fallacious reasons, that doesn't make it bullshit.

(July 26, 2017 at 6:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 26, 2017 at 5:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I wouldn't go using the words "blind spot" considering the age of the book of mythology you defend.

Actually, claiming that something is false because it is old, or better because it is new; is a fallacy.

So you, too, think that Apollo is real because Homer discusses him in an old book of myth?  Maybe you should sacrifice a goat.  Apollo likes that.  He may not shoot an arrow up your ass if you make a proper sacrifice.

Then again, you know those Greeks.

(July 26, 2017 at 6:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Actually, claiming that something is false because it is old, or better because it is new; is a fallacy.

If anything, it is not false due to its age but rather due to its primitiveness; especially, during a time when some of us have intellectually surpassed the mentality of irrelevant mythologies.

(July 26, 2017 at 8:10 pm)Lutrinae Wrote:

(July 26, 2017 at 6:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Actually, claiming that something is false because it is old, or better because it is new; is a fallacy.

If anything, it is not false due to its age but rather due to its primitiveness; especially, during a time when some of us have intellectually surpassed the mentality of irrelevant mythologies.

Just because there is bad thinking, doesn't mean that it is false. It means it is a bad reason for the belief. I agree, there are a number of things that we are more knowledgeable about. And we have better access than ever before. However the key to most fallacies, is they ignore the reasons and evidence, and instead focus on something of no or little consequence. It doesn't follow, that because it is old, or because you believe the person is more primitive that they are incorrect and the new or more advanced is right. It is about the reasons for the claim. When the claim is made doesn't matter. Similar, would be some people, who think that older necessarily means better. We do live in a cost pinching, throw away society you know.

I would say that because it's old, or they where more primitive is more of an explanation, not a reason for the conclusion.