Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[The Valkyrie]

Oh really?  When you go to a doctor does he do diagnostic tests on you or does he drive out demons?

Kindly join the 21st century.  You're embarrassing yourself now.

I put on a voodoo mask, sprinkle my patients with "special" blue water, wave rattles at them, and chant to the god Ripemoff" to drive the demons out.

I find it saves time and I can still charge them a shit-ton of cash.

[Foxaèr]

Science is a good thing.  And I don't think that science and religion are in a competition (which I believe is the mistake in this reply in pitting them against each other).  While science is a good philosophy at gaining knowledge for some things, it's not the answer to everything.  And much like the modern notion of science started in religious education institutions, many Christians do embrace it, and view it as a part of religious pursuit.  To study God's book of nature.  There  may be some who are against science or understanding, but I think you misunderstand a large number of Christians, by lumping all together based on the worst.   Do you want me to start categorizing you by some of the less than intellectual atheists here?  I have more respect for you than that!

Religion tends to make the claim that it is the only answer to everything.

The job of science is not to debunk religion, but science has already proven itself above religion due to the fact that what science has discovered inadvertently proved that religion knows nothing about life; and that is due to primitive minds having created mythological beliefs still followed by people who should know better in this day and age.

The problem with religion is that it fills in the gaps of scientific knowledge with an all too readily comforting answer of "god".

[KevinM1]

I'm still laughing at Steve asking "What is the evidence for atheism?" seriously.  And always relying, blatantly, on the popularity of his religion as though it's an accurate measure of its veracity in every conversation, as if it's a rhetorical magic bullet.

I've been gone for months, and he hasn't upped his game.  Feels bad, man.

And projecting his lack of intellect on the rest of us. That seems to be rampant; I wasn't even really aware of that tactic til I started watching AronRa's videos and now I fucking see it all the damn time from theists.

It's just amazing that they think it's a compelling argument.  "Over 4 billion served" doesn't make McDonald's any less shitty, and it doesn't make Christianity any more true.

[The Grand Nudger]

 And I learned that it seems that some, don't regard anything as evidence, unless they are persuaded by it.  So when they are saying there is no evidence, they are really just giving information about themselves.  

You learned nothing at all.  You have no evidence, but rather than face and own that fact with integrity you fantasize about others.   You know, this isn't a problem that every christian has.......

But there are a number of reasons and points of history, that are evidence for God (and many believe or come to belief because of that).

No, there aren't.  Suppose for a moment that there were a god..and it didn't feel like leaving you little clues - it's not like it owes you anything.  Maybe it wanted you to have faith, or some such shit.  It would only be your own pigheaded and misplaced sense of pride that kept you arguing for nonsense.  That's all it is, now, too.

[RoadRunner79]

Science is a good thing.  And I don't think that science and religion are in a competition (which I believe is the mistake in this reply in pitting them against each other).  While science is a good philosophy at gaining knowledge for some things, it's not the answer to everything.  And much like the modern notion of science started in religious education institutions, many Christians do embrace it, and view it as a part of religious pursuit.  To study God's book of nature.  There  may be some who are against science or understanding, but I think you misunderstand a large number of Christians, by lumping all together based on the worst.   Do you want me to start categorizing you by some of the less than intellectual atheists here?  I have more respect for you than that!

Religion tends to make the claim that it is the only answer to everything.

The job of science is not to debunk religion, but science has already proven itself above religion due to the fact that what science has discovered inadvertently proved that religion knows nothing about life; and that is due to primitive minds having created mythological beliefs still followed by people who should know better in this day and age.

The problem with religion is that it fills in the gaps of scientific knowledge with an all too readily comforting answer of "god".

Some people do present a "God of the gaps" methodology, but I have seen the claim mis-used often as well.  I disagree with your claims here, and don't want to take over Steves thread more than I already have (it is a good topic).  Perhaps we will discuss it sometime (I think I would enjoy that), or if you are inclined, you can make a thread and make your case.

[Foxaèr]

Some people do present a "God of the gaps" methodology, but I have seen the claim mis-used often as well.  I disagree with your claims here, and don't want to take over Steves thread more than I already have (it is a good topic).  Perhaps we will discuss it sometime (I think I would enjoy that), or if you are inclined, you can make a thread and make your case.

I respect your decision whatever it may be.

[paulpablo]

Every claim requires equal amounts of evidence.

If I say I went to the shops then we already know shops exist, that I exist, if you know me you know I have legs and could walk to the shops.

That gives my claim a head start from a claim like Jesus can miraculously come back from the dead, walk on water and heal the sick.

In the context of the bible, Jesus isn't a doctor, a magician or someone lucky enough to have been declared dead and then come back to life like some people sort of do.
All of those claims are claims of supernatural miracles, he's being helped by god to do what a normal human couldn't, which we have no hard evidence of ever happening to Jesus or anyone ever.

So both claims require an equal amount of evidence but my claim is not extraordinary because there's already evidence backing up my claim of it being possible to begin with.

[Whateverist]

 And I learned that it seems that some, don't regard anything as evidence, unless they are persuaded by it.  So when they are saying there is no evidence, they are really just giving information about themselves.  

You learned nothing at all.  You have no evidence, but rather than face and own that fact with integrity you fantasize about others.   You know, this isn't a problem that every christian has.......

But there are a number of reasons and points of history, that are evidence for God (and many believe or come to belief because of that).

No, there aren't.  Suppose for a moment that there were a god..and it didn't feel like leaving you little clues - it's not like it owes you anything.  Maybe it wanted you to have faith, or some such shit.  It would only be your own pigheaded and misplaced sense of pride that kept you arguing for nonsense.  That's all it is, now, too.

My sentiments to a T.  Rather than argue for the superiority of your epistemic position, the essence of faith would be to admit its frailty and persist nonetheless.  If you have so little faith anyhow, why is it important to convince us?  Convince yourself.

[RoadRunner79]

You learned nothing at all.  You have no evidence, but rather than face and own that fact with integrity you fantasize about others.   You know, this isn't a problem that every christian has.......

No, there aren't.  Suppose for a moment that there were a god..and it didn't feel like leaving you little clues - it's not like it owes you anything.  Maybe it wanted you to have faith, or some such shit.  It would only be your own pigheaded and misplaced sense of pride that kept you arguing for nonsense.  That's all it is, now, too.

My sentiments to a T.  Rather than argue for the superiority of your epistemic position, the essence of faith would be to admit its frailty and persist nonetheless.  If you have so little faith anyhow, why is it important to convince us?  Convince yourself.

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.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

What the fuck is up with you? Do you have a split personality or something? That is literally the polar opposite of your point of view in every other thread I've seen you in.

He does that all the time, and then whines about being strawmanned.