Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Minimalist]

8. I'm not clear on what you are claiming. Paul invented Christianity?

How about xtianity invented "paul?"

[Neo-Scholastic]

You haven't mentioned any evidence for a god, there's nothing to account for in fairy tales and the people who believe in them.

But there are facts that are evident. The question is whether those facts, support, to greater or lesser degree, the point being made. SteveII has indeed presented facts. He has drawn conclusions from and formed opinions about those facts. What he is waiting for is for someone to present valid objections or defeaters to his conclusions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, there are facts that are evident.  People tell god stories is one evident fact.  Some people believe in those god stories is another.  If his conclusion were that fairy tales exist and people believe them, then his points would have merit and support such a conclusion. The story exists, some people believed it - but since no one disputes this, no one needs to present any argument or counterexample to "defeat" it. It's fundamentally impossible to point at either a claim or the people who believe in a claim as an indicator of it;s accuracy. That;s not how that works, he may not know that, how about you? He's not even waiting, because this subject has been done to death for years on this site, -with him in the convo- ...so let's at least -try- be less disingenuous, hmn?

I, personally, assume you could do better. Do you also think that "well, I've got this book...see..." is a competent argument for -any- god? Lay aside competent arguments, can you imagine that "well, I've got this book....see...." is evidence for -any- god?

[Minimalist]

But there are facts that are evident.

Such as?  What do you consider a fact?

[Harry Nevis]

You haven't mentioned any evidence for a god, there's nothing to account for in fairy tales and the people who believe in them.

But there are facts that are evident. The question is whether those facts, support, to greater or lesser degree, the point being made. SteveII has indeed presented facts. He has drawn conclusions from and formed opinions about those facts.  What he is waiting for is for someone to present valid objections or defeaters to his conclusions.

No, he's not waiting.  He's ignoring.  His evidence is also evidence for a myriad of other, more logical explanations.  He has no evidence that can only be explained by the existence of his god.

[SteveII]

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".

Do you really think this is an important point to argue? You're saying some decent things in my opinion, but it's not really unreasonable that someone would discard very weak evidence as not being evidence at all. There's a point where evidence goes from meaning nothing to meaning something, and it seems like a semantic difference to insist we include the evidence that really means nothing under the category of evidence.

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? 
2. They cannot explain why the facts we do have (of which they are unfamiliar) is not evidence of what it claims to be--failing to realize this is a claim to knowledge for which they can't possibly have because of 1.

[The Grand Nudger]

Atheists this, atheists that.  Atheists stole my cookie! It's all the fault of the icky atheists that you're incapable of presenting any evidence, I'm sure.

[LadyForCamus]

The only thing inch deep here is your pool of "evidence."  Harry and I have no responsibility to counter you.  None of the above listed (separate or cumulatively) are evidence of the existence of God.  Other possible (and more reasonable) explanations have been postulated to you and RR time and again, but you don't like those possibilities so you simply dismiss them.  If your evidence is sucky, that's on you.  

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.

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 Harry have failed to even scratch the surface of doing that.

You have failed to provide anything which requires scratching.

---

Do you really think this is an important point to argue? You're saying some decent things in my opinion, but it's not really unreasonable that someone would discard very weak evidence as not being evidence at all. There's a point where evidence goes from meaning nothing to meaning something, and it seems like a semantic difference to insist we include the evidence that really means nothing under the category of evidence.

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? 
2. They cannot explain why the facts we do have (of which they are unfamiliar) is not evidence of what it claims to be--failing to realize this is a claim to knowledge for which they can't possibly have because of 1.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to Poca, who addressed each of your points of "evidence" that you listed.

[Harry Nevis]

Do you really think this is an important point to argue? You're saying some decent things in my opinion, but it's not really unreasonable that someone would discard very weak evidence as not being evidence at all. There's a point where evidence goes from meaning nothing to meaning something, and it seems like a semantic difference to insist we include the evidence that really means nothing under the category of evidence.

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? 
2. They cannot explain why the facts we do have (of which they are unfamiliar) is not evidence of what it claims to be--failing to realize this is a claim to knowledge for which they can't possibly have because of 1.

And, of course, not understanding means agreeing with you.  And I've offered alternatives for what these facts point to, but, of course, you've blinded yourself to any possible alternate explanations.

[shadow]

Do you really think this is an important point to argue? You're saying some decent things in my opinion, but it's not really unreasonable that someone would discard very weak evidence as not being evidence at all. There's a point where evidence goes from meaning nothing to meaning something, and it seems like a semantic difference to insist we include the evidence that really means nothing under the category of evidence.

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.