Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Amarok]

And to restate it . Apologist here are pissy that rational adults  don't buy there myths.Whether the consensus agrees with them or not . And the only belligerent children are Wooter and his gang.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Going back to the OP, the vast majority of atheists don't claim knowledge, they claim skepticism.

[Minimalist]

I see no evidence for any of the gods ever invented by the human imagination.  That perception is reinforced after watching these three turds make fools of themselves.

[Amarok]

Going back to the OP, the vast majority of atheists don't claim knowledge, they claim skepticism.

Yup .No matter what straw men he wooter and road use to convince themselves that were just as biased and motivated as they are .

[Foxaèr]

I prefer the theist who is honest and states that, after a process of honest critical thinking, s/he can live a perfectly good and happy life without a belief in some deity; that the persistence in belief is one born from comfort rather than logic.

[Anomalocaris]

I prefer the theist who is honest and states that, after a process of honest critical thinking, s/he can live a perfectly good and happy life without a belief in some deity; that the persistence in belief is one born from comfort rather than logic.

A truly self-honest theist would stop being a theist. What you prefer is a theist whose honesty stops at the worthlessness of his belief but electively excludes what its worthlessness says about the belief.

A person who sets self-serving boundary for his own honesty is no different from any thief or liar.

[Amarok]

Funny things is even biblical archeology does not help wooters case ( A his argument archeology always agrees with the bible is bullshit)

As carrier demonstrates in his debate with Craig Evans  in the Argument from Verisimilitude section

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10935

[Pat Mustard]

it is a national monument populated with the furnishings he sat on. Do you have that for your little Jesus? That right, you don't. Here's a gold star for your book report. (What's that? You can't expect his home to survive 2000 years? Some omnipotence! Some God!)
.

Don't see why not, at least part of the Domus Augusti has survived 2,000 years.

[SteveII]

Welcome to the party Simon.

1. First, 'good' as it applies to standards of proof is subjective, so that sentence is your opinion. Second, what type of evidence for first century miracles, supernatural, God claims would be 'good' evidence? If this 'good' evidence is not possible, then you are just question begging: miracles can't happen so the NT can't be evidence of miracles. 

I have never claimed that miracles can't happen. Only that I have not been presented with the type of evidence that would convince me.

My claim is that texts, written by scientifically illiterate people, decades or more after the alleged events, by non eyewitnesses, is not good evidence. Anyone that considers themself a critical thinker but then lowers their bar for evidence for miracle claims to texts, is doing it wrong.

2. Not at all. Unlike all of the atheist who make the claim of "no evidence", I am willing to look at the evidence presented from other religions and tell you precisely why I don't find them compelling. Go ahead...present some evidence for another religion and I will tell you why we have apples and oranges and definitely not special pleading.

And of course, you will use your religious texts as the ruler, in order to make the judgement on whether they are or are not compelling. While, what you should actually be comparing them to is the "null hypothesis". The same ruler I compare ALL religious texts to.

3. I'm sure they are. What we don't have is other people describing the same single event -- the abduction of one single person. All we have is self-reporting. Here is the real problem with this analogy: if Jesus had written his claims down, you would argue that it needed to be witnessed by others for us to believe!!

Actually, this is not true. There are quite a few experiences with mass sightings and multiple abductions.

4. It is your claim they were not eyewitnesses! They claimed they were. Competing claims...I go with them.

Not my claim. The claim of the majority of Biblical scholars, including Christian scholars.

1. Why do you say non-eyewitnesses?  27 books plus Q, possibly L and M as well is in the list of evidence. The fact that we don't know who wrote 3-4 of them does not mean what you think it means. Of course the recipients would have known the exact provenance of each. In the case of the three gospels, the people who copied the manuscripts for distribution only felt the need to record whose information was contained in the document (Matthew, Mark, John) and not the guy with the pen. Luke was not a disciple and intended to "write an orderly account" in Luke and Acts. If you want actual eyewitnesses with their names on the books, John, Peter, and James.

2. I consider the evidence. You didn't present any to comment on so I guess I am off the hook for 'special pleading'. 

3. Notice you did not address my point. I specifically said multiple people describing the same abduction. Otherwise these abductions are in the mind of one person at a time--which is only evidence of what goes on in the mind of one person at a time. 

4. First, I don't believe you are right, second, you can find a scholar to believe nearly anything to support any opinion you or I want to.

[Amarok]

Right on time Steve comes back and provides some already debunked points. Straw men .And some pointless apologist whining . Nice to see nothing has changed