Let's polish that subject line up a bit.

"Incredible bullshit claims require absolutely amazing evidence."

(July 26, 2017 at 7:14 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(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.

---

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.

You, "And I agree, we shouldn't just accept everything without reason."

HA HA HA HA that's rich coming from you. Look in the  mirror buddy. Men popping out of dirt, women popping out of ribs, talking donkeys, talking bushes, talking snakes, magic babies with super powers and claims of zombie gods.

HELLO MCFLY...... That was then, this is now. It was understandable that people made that crap up and sold it back then because they didn't know any better. You look silly now still buying it.

I am just sad that these guys don't actually see the bias they are introducing and the relevance thereof.

Even if they are right, they do not comprehend the academic approach to substantiate this.

Tentative is a word they don't seem to understand, confirmation bias, lies, cultural and textual criticism seem to elude them too.

I am not saying they are wrong, but they have got peer review study arse backward. Never assume the conclusion, and I think they clearly have.

Happy to admit I don't know it though.

(July 30, 2017 at 10:24 am)Aroura Wrote: This.

I'd honestly like to hear Steve (or anyone liking Steve's posts) to address this.

Steve doesn't actually apply any of that shit to his -own- religion either.  The last time we actually did the math he got super pissed at all the fun that could be had with numbers. He just waited a few months and posted it again, like a real asshole.

(July 30, 2017 at 3:39 pm)JackRussell Wrote: I am just sad that these guys don't actually see the bias they are introducing and the relevance thereof.

Even if they are right, they do not comprehend the academic approach to substantiate this.

Tentative is a word they don't seem to understand, confirmation bias, lies, cultural and textual criticism seem to elude them too.

I am not saying they are wrong, but they have got peer review study arse backward. Never assume the conclusion, and I think they clearly have.

Happy to admit I don't know it though.

The dumbest part is that, none of this crap is what convinced them in the first place; a limited set of circumstances, i.e. indoctrination at their most vulnerable ages, produced this cognitive dissonance, and since they're already convinced of their conclusion, they assume all of this crap must be both true (to support the conclusion they're already 'right' about) and compelling, when it's neither and in fact couldn't be further from true or convincing.

Generally if you want people to believe your extraordinary claims, then yes--you do need extraordinary evidence. And the bible is NOT evidence. The number of people believing it is NOT evidence. The bible is the one making the claim (and I might add nobody knows who wrote the bible. Nobody even knows anything about the people who wrote the bible, except for what they themselves wrote. Which makes it not just an extraordinary claim, but a dubious one at that. Here people are putting their trust in an unknown author of unknown origins, from which they know nothing about except what the author themselves has said about themselves.) The people believing the claim are the ones that accept it--but aren't evidence themselves.

All you're essentially saying is that you don't need extraordinary evidence for your claim, because a lot of people agree with you, and atheists can just shove it. If that's what you're saying, instead of typing a wall of text, just say "Fuck off Atheists. God is real!" You might as well. It'll be just as convincing, and more honest than the bullshit of trying to spin logic in such a way logic is not meant to be spun.

(July 30, 2017 at 10:24 am)Aroura Wrote:

(July 30, 2017 at 5:50 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: There is one last thing I wish to say in this thread. Why does Steve not put other religions to the same three "tests" he subjects christianity to. Why does he not apply his pseudo-Bayesian equation to Nordic paganism, why does he not use the same "the claims are so out there that those who made them couldn't possibly have lied" to the claims made about Vishnu (whic are equally as fantastic as those made about Jesus), and why does he not accept the weight of numbers argument to accept the truth of the claim for Mohammed's  night journey?

Because when it comes to religiouns he doesn't believe he uses the same tools we do to dispassionately evaluate them and logically conclude's they don't represent reality. What when applied to the new testament is hyper-pseudo-sceptical becomes only right and proper when applied to the qu'ran or the bhagavad ghita.

This.

I'd honestly like to hear Steve (or anyone liking Steve's posts) to address this.

Well, I cannot speak for Steve, but in my own case I think people need to look at the type of literature containing miracle accounts. Works of mythological or allegorical literature describe vague seemingly timeless settings and begin with phrases like "a long time ago in a gallexy far, far away...once upon a time" or even "in the beginning" like in Genesis. The Vedic texts, Sutras, and so-called Gnostic gospels are pretty much all like this. The canonical gospels are very different. They mention specific times and places using the narrative conventions of the period similar to Plutarch. The Pauline epistles are letters on par with other similar types of functional documents produced at around the same time. As such, the miracles found in the NT are presented to us as historical events, with the Resurection in particular being prominently mentioned from in multiple places.

As for me I have no bias against the supernatural as such, so I see no reason to automatically rule them out simply because they are miraculous.

(July 28, 2017 at 3:05 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(July 28, 2017 at 2:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: As I said to Harry, if you say my list is not evidence, you are making a claim that you have knowledge of an alternate explanation to everything I listed that is a matter of fact.

That's not true at all.  I am not making any claims.  I am simply rejecting ancient hearsay as evidence for the theist claim that god exists.  

Two things about that:

1. Most of the NT is not hearsay. John, Peter and James were eyewitnesses. Paul never related the events of Jesus' life. It is not necessarily true that 
2. Hearsay is evidence. So what you are saying is "I am simply rejecting ancient hearsay [evidence] as evidence..." 

So, you are making claims regarding the evidence that is not hearsay and you reject the hearsay evidence without reason (so you say)--in spite of accepting it in every other ancient historical account ever. 

Quote:

Quote:This endeavor cannot be summed up with one word answers like deceit, myth, or conspiracy. There has to be a body of facts that account for everything I mentioned.

Those things, cumulatively, are far more likely and reasonable an explanation.  A more reasonable alternative is all I need in order to reject the supernatural (whatever that means) as an explanation for mass belief, or for anything.

You (and others) keep saying that there is a reasonable explanation. However, there is none forthcoming that answers all the facts we find in the first century church. Go ahead, try one.

---

(July 28, 2017 at 3:47 pm)shadow Wrote:

(July 28, 2017 at 2:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: In my experience here, most atheist have so little understanding of the NT, its provenance, its people, its content, and its message that there is no way they can even claim there is no evidence because of two facts:

1. Because they do not have any clue about the facts they are claiming are not evidence. Really not much at all. You just mentioned goat herders. Another "a book". Another mentioned Teacher of Righteousness, temples and Confucious. Another believes that Jesus must have been crucified twice. Paul didn't agree with Jesus or founded Christianity. And I have so many people blocked that I don't see half of the dumb things that are said.  How do you reject something that you don't even have sufficient knowledge of?

It's not like atheists just never have heard of religion before. Many atheists were steeped in religion at some point in their life or have considered the topic deeply. As for how do you reject something that you don't have sufficient knowledge of: how much do you know about Pastafarianism? I bet I know more about Christianity than you do about Pastafarianism. But do you reject the ideology?

Also, you didn't respond when I said if not goat herders, who? I think understanding who we're talking about here is a valid discussion.

Your analogy does not fit the point I was making.

I never said how can you reject something that you don't have sufficient knowledge of? I very specifically mentioned the body of evidence for Christianity that many here simply claim "no evidence". You simply cannot say that without understanding the thing you are claiming is not evidence.

Who in the NT was a goat herder?

SteveII Wrote:You (and others) keep saying that there is a reasonable explanation. However, there is none forthcoming that answers all the facts we find in the first century church. Go ahead, try one.

An offshoot of Judaism formed around the beginning of the first century AD/last century BC that spoke to the common Jewish person under Roman domination and caught on. The movement was at least partially based on the teachings of an itinerant rabbi known as Yeshua, who was once a follower of John the Baptist. He was a reputed miracle worker, believed to be accompanied by healings wherever he went. There were reports that this holy teacher was conceived out of wedlock, but such a holy man could not possibly have come from the loins of a fallen woman. Some went so far as to call him the Son of God, immaculately conceived. He ran afoul of the Roman authorities, possibly due to the machinations of the Sanhedrin, and was executed. His most devoted followers, the ones who considered him God's direct offspring, couldn't believe he was really dead, that God would allow his son to be killed like that. Soon, there were reports that he was still alive, that hundreds of people had seen him. A movement based on venerating the risen messiah grew over centuries and survives to the present day, though it now faces stiff competition from another religion originating in the Middle East.

(July 31, 2017 at 10:20 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:You (and others) keep saying that there is a reasonable explanation. However, there is none forthcoming that answers all the facts we find in the first century church. Go ahead, try one.

An offshoot of Judaism formed around the beginning of the first century AD/last century BC that spoke to the common Jewish person under Roman domination and caught on. The movement was at least partially based on the teachings of an itinerant rabbi known as Yeshua, who was once a follower of John the Baptist. He was a reputed miracle worker, believed to be accompanied by healings wherever he went. There were reports that this holy teacher was conceived out of wedlock, but such a holy man could not possibly have come from the loins of a fallen woman. Some went so far as to call him the Son of God, immaculately conceived. He ran afoul of the Roman authorities, possibly due to the machinations of the Sanhedrin, and was executed. His most devoted followers, the ones who considered him God's direct offspring, couldn't believe he was really dead, that God would allow his son to be killed like that. Soon, there were reports that he was still alive, that hundreds of people had seen him. A movement based on venerating the risen messiah grew over centuries and survives to the present day, though it now faces stiff competition from another religion originating in the Middle East.

Dude, don't waste your breath. This fuckwit actually thinks the fucking gospel writers were eyewitnesses.