Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Harry Nevis]

3. No, they are dead and I was not there. I am taking the stance that there is not one shred of evidence of mass deceit or conspiracy in the NT. 'Goat herders' is not only inaccurate, but a disingenuous attempt strengthen your argument--the technical term--ad hominem.

---

How about mass delusion?  We have countless bits of evidence for that throughout history.  It explains the obvious tripe of bodies rising from the grave and walking around after the crucifixion.

[Astonished]

I noticed a series of posts, along this line from you here.  I feel fairly confident (they can correct me, if I'm wrong) in saying that the theist involved in this conversation are not saying that everything anyone has claimed is always true.   Also in my experience, it is followed by a similar line of questions, for which you believe things, which you have to trust the testimony of others for their validity.  Also in my experience, this takes a very long time for an atheist to admit this when asking questions. 

So, unless you are holding to a position apart from what I described above, and justifying the most rigid fundamentalist and conspiracy theorist out there. (I can think of a lot of things to question, and say there is no evidence for; on these grounds alone)   I thought that perhaps it may speed things up, to skip this part, and move on to discussing what makes a testimony good evidence.

I've read this three times and I still don't have the remotest idea what you're saying.

Good, so I'm not the only one.

Also, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of what's being claimed is that whatever is being pointed to as evidence for theistic claims IS evidence, even if it's the worst kind, which to me makes no fucking sense. It's as if I said that a solar eclipse is evidence that there is a turd at the bottom of my clothing hamper. If I make that claim, I clearly don't know what the fuck I'm talking about and that 'evidence' should be completely dismissed, and cease to be categorized as evidence. I see no reason why the insubstantial ramblings of a stone-age fairy tale should be taken as evidence of anything, but I seem to be getting told that no, not only is it 'evidence' but evidence good enough not to completely dismiss. That's going miles too far.

So am I missing something? Is there just some fancy wordplay I skimmed through too quickly to identify as bullshit on its own terms?

[Harry Nevis]

Concrete evidence? None of your evidence points to your beliefs as the only possible explanation.  And adding up all this evidence makes it no more proven or likely than any one piece.

While I know I will never get an answer from you, what are the other possible explanations that we see each of those 7 points? Make sure you get them all--because otherwise your theory will collapse like a house of cards.

I have no house of cards.  My position depends on nothing but the lack of any evidence other than hearsay. If you can't think of any other explanations for these points, you have no critical thinking skills.

---

While I know I will never get an answer from you, what are the other possible explanations that we see each of those 7 points? Make sure you get them all--because otherwise your theory will collapse like a house of cards. 

Wow, I answered!  Did you "know" that I wouldn't answer in the same way you "know" your god is real?

[SteveII]

If we go with "atheists make no claims" then as to the question of is there a God, we have some evidence that there is and on the other side, we have no evidence there is not (I'll even grant you by definition). My point was and is that if there can only be evidence on one side of the equation, the distinction or need of 'extraordinary evidence' is meaningless. Any evidence is sufficient to increase the probability, because there is no rebuttal evidence to overcome. 

For the same reason, I pointed out that strong atheism actually would be the extraordinary claim because it is doing so with no ordinary evidence.

Is the fact that many people have prayed to god and not gotten a response evidence for atheism?  Or the fact that many things that were said to be caused by the acts of gods are now shown to be wrong?  Looks like there is evidence on both sides.

No. Neither is evidence that there is no God. The first is an argument from silence (a fallacy) and the second is simply a mistake or lack of knowledge on the part of a human.

[Harry Nevis]

Is the fact that many people have prayed to god and not gotten a response evidence for atheism?  Or the fact that many things that were said to be caused by the acts of gods are now shown to be wrong?  Looks like there is evidence on both sides.

No. Neither is evidence that there is no God. The first is an argument from silence (a fallacy) and the second is simply a mistake or lack of knowledge on the part of a human.

The whole bible can be explained as a mistake or lack of knowledge on the part of humans.

[SteveII]

While I know I will never get an answer from you, what are the other possible explanations that we see each of those 7 points? Make sure you get them all--because otherwise your theory will collapse like a house of cards.

I have no house of cards.  My position depends on nothing but the lack of any evidence other than hearsay. If you can't think of any other explanations for these points, you have no critical thinking skills.

---

While I know I will never get an answer from you, what are the other possible explanations that we see each of those 7 points? Make sure you get them all--because otherwise your theory will collapse like a house of cards. 

Wow, I answered!  Did you "know" that I wouldn't answer in the same way you "know" your god is real?

LOL, you didn't provide an answer. You just restated your claim. I will break it down.

1. There is a body of information we have (see list) that clearly claims something and provides reasons to believe that something. 
2. If you want to claim that this is not evidence, then you must demonstrate WHY this is not evidence. See, the burden of proof shifted to you once you denied there was evidence (which is a claim). You now have to explain the bits of information we have (again, see the list). 
3. If you were smart, you would take the more modest position of "the evidence is not compelling".

[pocaracas]

I just saw this list on some other reply... and had to say something!

What do you mean I don't accept ordinary evidence for anyone else's extraordinary claims? How would you know that? To what do you refer? 

And it the body of evidence only included the 'stories', you would have a point. But that's no where near all that it includes (pasted from earlier):
- Documentary (both actual and inferred)

Like I said before, I didn't read the whole thread.... I have no idea what Documentary you mean...
May I suggest a few?
BBC's Bible Buried Secrets
Finkelstein's Bible Unearthed

- The churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.

Before churches got that name, they were temples... temples have existed for far longer than christianity, or even judaism.

- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances

As if fiction was something brand new in the world... huh?

- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).

You mean, the claims that someone else wrote down?

- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and how it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that.

Seems to fit...
Confucious' message also seems to fit.
Buddah's, too.

Both came before Jesus. Can't be impressed that it showed up at that particular location of the... wait for it... silk road!

- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written. To have them work so well together is incredible.

Have you ever read Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities?
Minimalist can get you a copy...

- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.

First off.... facts is hardly a word I'd use there.
But what do you know of the Essenes? And the likely claim that, had he existed, both John the Baptist and Jesus were Essenes?
And note the similarities between Jesus and the Essene figure of the Teacher of Righteousness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher_of_Righteousness.

I do have some measure of faith they are accurate--but my point is and will continue to be, there is much more evidence that supports reasonable belief than the standard internet-bred atheist thinks. I have never demanded that anyone find it compelling, but claim there is "no evidence" (made left and right on this site) is just stupid talk and someone has to point that out--because atheist here hardly ever call out each other on stupidity.

We say that there is no evidence of a particular thing - the god and it's extraordinary feats.
The existence of believers is never questioned. All the things you mention were done by believers. People who, even way back then, described themselves as believers. It's like they didn't have first hand knowledge.
People who, apparently, already followed some sort of belief system... how difficult would it be to follow a new charismatic leader, such as Paul?

[LadyForCamus]

People make claims, sure... Whether they're theists or atheists.
But you were saying that atheism is a claim. That it is a more extraordinary claim than theism, on account of the absence of evidence for it.
I'm saying theism is the claim and atheism is simply the position of not accepting the theism claim... Unlike many other possible a[claim]isms, this one developed a name throughout human history... Because the theism claim has had some success for a long time, most of which mankind was mostly ignorant of the world.
But now we know better, we have many tools at our disposal to probe the world and figure out how it works... Thus far, none of those tools has yielded anything resembling a god - not that they're looking for a god, but for something that is claimed to be so omni, it seems remarkably absent. And this renders the theism claim an extraordinary one .
Like a claim that any work of fiction is indeed real. The force, magic, the TARDIS, zylons, Klingons, etc... The claim that any of these is real is an extraordinary claim and would require some hefty evidence. While the default "I don't believe that claim" requires no evidence at all. You just need to go "nothing in the reality that humans agree upon support that such a claim is true".
And no, cosplayers, people talking about those fictional universes, speaking in languages from those universes, or even providing testimony that they're real is not credible evidence.

If we go with "atheists make no claims" then as to the question of is there a God, we have some evidence that there is and on the other side we have no evidence there is not (I'll even grant you by definition). My point was and is that if there can only be evidence on one side of the equation, the distinction or need of 'extraordinary evidence' is meaningless. Any evidence is sufficient to increase the probability, because there is no rebuttal evidence to overcome. 

For the same reason, I pointed out that strong atheism actually would be the extraordinary claim because it is doing so with no ordinary evidence.

Bold mine.

No, you don't. The Bible is not evidence of god. The Bible, at best, is evidence that a particular group of people believed in a particular God at a particular time in history. That's about as far as you can get.

[Harry Nevis]

I have no house of cards.  My position depends on nothing but the lack of any evidence other than hearsay. If you can't think of any other explanations for these points, you have no critical thinking skills.

---

Wow, I answered!  Did you "know" that I wouldn't answer in the same way you "know" your god is real?

LOL, you didn't provide an answer. You just restated your claim. I will break it down.

1. There is a body of information we have (see list) that clearly claims something and provides reasons to believe that something. 
2. If you want to claim that this is not evidence, then you must demonstrate WHY this is not evidence. See, the burden of proof shifted to you once you denied there was evidence (which is a claim). You now have to explain the bits of information we have (again, see the list). 
3. If you were smart, you would take the more modest position of "the evidence is not compelling".

1. You have an old book and hearsay testimony.
2. It's not evidence that god exists, it's evidence that people believe god exists.
3. If you were smart, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Camus
It fails to approach even that vastly lowered bar.  The narratives in the bible represent many different cultures and individuals at many different times who all believed in fundamentally different gods.  That they all got lumped together (those, ofc, that didn't get tossed out) was a matter of council politics and literary convention, not divine identity or faithful continuity. This was as true since the dawn of the belief-set as it is now. If a person tells you "I believe in the god of the bible" they've offered o meaningful specificity, as the next thirty believers will be more than keen to tell you all of the shit that the initial claimant got wrong about, purportedly, "the same god" - or that all of them got it wrng and the bible is a fairy tale -about- a god. The existence of the bible tells us no more than that the stories have been useful - not that any given person believes or believed in a specific concept of divinity...not even the one, or ten, or ten thousand, or who the hell knows how many one true gods will arise out of those pages before christers are done schisming, -of magic book.