(July 27, 2017 at 6:08 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 27, 2017 at 4:44 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Late to the party.... again!



(my bold)
I haven't read everything... so... feel free to crucify me if this has already been mentioned...

If this applies to other works of fiction, then maybe... maybe.... maybe... it's not a good measure of reality.
There is zero evidence for a-force-ism, so the Jedi are real.
There is zero evidence for a-faer-ism, so faeries exist.
There is zero evidence for a-warp-speed-ism, so Star Trek is an accurate portrayal of the future.
There is zero evidence for a-pokemon-ism, so there are definitely Japanese kids engaging in small pocket monster slavery for the purpose of battling other similar monsters.
There is zero evidence for a-zylon-ism, so the Earth most surely was the 13th colony.

That is nowhere near what that sentence says, implies, or means. I will try again.

1. Supernatural events are extraordinary claims because of difficulty obtaining evidence.
2. Ordinary claims are ones in which good evidence is possible to obtain.
3. There is no evidence for atheism 
4. There is some evidence for God (natural theology, revealed theology, the person of Jesus/events of his life, personal experience, properly basic belief in the supernatural in ~90% or the world's population).
5. If evidence for the existence of God can be obtained and cannot be obtained for his non-existence, then on the question of God's existence, at worst, the atheism is making the extraordinary claim, and at best the distinction of 'extraordinary' becomes meaningless.

Bullet points are so much easier to follow! Thank you!

1. Alright... let's go ahead with that one.
2. Seems reasonable....
3. BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! atheism is not the claim. The claim is theism. Atheism, as a concept, exists because theism has become so powerful it got to be nearly ubiquitous. Look at my reply.... how many made up claims can exist out there, if we assume each and everyone of the a_[claim]_isms has no evidence? (hint: as many as human imagination can conjure up... or more!)
4. All the evidence for God that you present is, at best, circumstantial... at worst, made up.... there's some wiggle room in between for honest mistakes, wrongful attribution, susceptibility, suggestibility, charisma, etc., etc., etc...
5. Oh, sorry... this whole thing broke off at 3., so no... your conclusion is unsupported.

Thank you for playing.
Try again!


But I'll grant you it was a nice try. Such wordy presentations can, and in fact do, convince many people.
And therein lies the problem - a large share of the population can be easily convinced by bad arguments.
I don't know how, but the population needs to acquire critical thinking skills. We can't leave this in the hands of the few who seem to do it effortlessly... these usually lack the required charisma to spread the message convincingly.

(July 26, 2017 at 11:20 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(July 26, 2017 at 5:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think it is a fancy way of promoting selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticsim.  As you pointed out, what is an extraordinary claim; or for that matter, what is extraordinary evidence?  It is often just a way to move the goalpost, for that which goes against ones worldview.  To test this, try using this claim when the shoe is on the other foot, and see what your results are.  

I have started discussions before; I don't think that this philosophy is valid (although I can see where it could be useful to dismiss things lazily).  I think it is inconsistent and subjective.   You may get an example, and be asked, which you would be more likely to believe and they will give and analogy, with one thing you will likely accept, and one you likely won't.   However from an epistemology sense they are equal.   You don't have more reason to believe one over the other.  My view is that you are more willing to relieve the epistemic burden for one over the other.  Not that one requires more as a way of knowing.  That is; you are willing to make more assumptions or believe more on faith, in one instance over the other.  

I have heard some valid points, when I am able to get people to discuss this and I'm willing to concede a few things.   However, I don't think it gets you to the way that the extraordinary claims sound bite is often used.  

Anyway, based on my experience, I wish you luck in your efforts.

The whole point of the scientific method is to remove subjective judgment from the evaluation of a hypothesis. The irony is that when it comes to anything remotely hinting at the supernatural, in trots the highly subjective criteria of 'extraordinary'. These pseudo-skeptics are a bunch of hypocrites. It's all science, science, science, until its something they don't like and it suits their incredulity its science+. "Oh, yes that's evidence, but its not EXTRAORDINARY evidence"

I call B.S; very few I have found, can admit that there is evidence.  Perhaps that's evidence, but not for this?

I find it interesting, when it is stated that they don't believe, because there is no evidence.  Then evidence is rejected, on the basis that the conclusion is unbelievable, so that doesn't count.  I can see where such stacking the deck is beneficial, but not useful in discovering the truth.   Heads I win.... Tails you lose.

But mostly I find a switch to hyperskepticsm, where either the stringent reproducibility of the natural sciences and/or having to see it personally is required.  I can reject a lot of things, if absolute certainty is required!

............."there's this book.....see...."

If I told you I caught a 6 foot hammerhead with my hands would you believe my testimony? Notice, in my story, nothing magical took place. I have hands, hammerheads exist. What say you, do you trust testimony?

(July 27, 2017 at 3:09 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:I think it is a fancy way of promoting selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticsim.  As you pointed out, what is an extraordinary claim; or for that matter, what is extraordinary evidence?

Yeah, I was just telekinetically hovering over my roof this morning and a thousand people saw me, right after I put my pants on.

Really, who can tell whether it was the hovering or dressing that's the extraordinary claim? It would take selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticism to be able to pretend to tell the difference.

Actually, I would look for independent corroborating evidence among other things to accept this claim.  As I just stated to someone else, I don't think anyone is stating, that every testimony is true.   (Some people think there is nothing wrong lying, if it benefits them)  I also don't think you would agree, that anyone can disregard any testimony of evidence based on that reason alone.

---

(July 27, 2017 at 3:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote: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.

An argument from incredulity occurs when someone asserts that something didn't happen because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

'A miracle didn't happen because I don't believe in God and I don't see how it could have happened without an omnipotent being to pull it off' is an example of an argument from incredulity.

'I don't believe it because the evidence for it is hearsay, and ancient hearsay with no provenance to boot' is not an example of an argument from incredulity.

Yes, I agree.  And if you mean the latter, you should say that, instead of what you originally did (and be ready to support your claims.)  If you give bad reasoning, I don't think that it's wrong to point it out.

---

(July 27, 2017 at 3:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:I think that you have a different understanding of faith than I do.  And I don't consider my faith weak, but strong because of the evidence.

It seems like the faith needed to believe something would be inversely proportional to the evidence available to support it. But what's the evidence, again? I seem to missed your attempt to present it.

Yes, and you seem to misunderstand where my faith is applied. It isn't a blind faith.
And I don't believe that I did present any evidence. Just stated, that my faith is based on it. I think it is more important, that your evaluation of the evidence, isn't biased by your aversion to the conclusion. It's not about what, but the why. Unless, perhaps the what is contradictory, to something else, which you fell has better support as an evidence standpoint.

This is getting tedious. Extraordinary claims I already believe require very little support. Those I don't believe do.

The difference is the reception you expect for the extraordinary claims you believe. That my wife loves me and I her are not things you need to believe. That there are depths to each one of us to which we can appeal for greater insight than we hold consciously is another claim I hold, can't support but don't expect you to accept. Do you see the difference? Why do you feel entitled to my acceptance of what you cannot adequately support? Can't you maintain belief without universal agreement?

The basic question everyone seems to be asking is:

"Why do people believe the ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish religious fairy tale when there's no evidence any of it is truer than any other assorted ethnocentric religious fairy tale?"

It makes as much sense as a 16th Century Eskimo believing in Islam. The guy is a member of a different ethnic group who has absolutely no concept of what a 7th Century desert Arab experienced so why would he believe in the Arabian religious fairy tale?

So here we are in 2017 and people are believing in an ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish religious fairy tale thousands of year old when they have zero cultural ties to it. That's sort of insane. Why not believe in the ancient Egyptian religion from 3,000 years ago?