Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[The Grand Nudger]

Ofc you have Neo, you've seen many..and you give it away when you add the qualifier "serious".  All that really means, is that you disagree, or think that the rebuttal was offered in a mocking style not respectful of the subject matter you consider to be super serious.........but you would, wouldn't you?

[Harry Nevis]

Atheists get tired of hearing the same old debunked claims and arguments. 

I don't know about the others but I'm still waiting to see all those defeaters I keep hearing about. I don't think I've ever seen a serious objection to most Necessary Being demonstrations (here and supplemented  here) or the Argument from Logic (here.)

Of course you've seen them.  But they won't fit through the god-filter everything must pass through.

[Whateverist]

We've got GC-ists, RR-ists, Steve-ists, and Neo-ists, etc....round hur.  Ultimately it;s a fine, fine blade, since christians don;t really believe the same shit anyway, and never have - but, I like to be specific, lol.  

They each have their own favorite soda pop, too.

I wonder what is the one true biblical soda pop anyway?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, if that was the goal, there are easier and far less batshit ways to do so.  In my experience with christians, -those- ways shut down objections whole cloth and engender respect, understanding, and friendship.

Maybe not so much you, Thump and Whateverist but look at the response SteveII, Roadrunner79 and I get from the likes of Mimimilist, Tazzycorn, Tiz, and Astonshing. Now if we came at you like Lil'Rick and Huggy, then maybe I could see your point. But it seems to me that even if you find our arguments weak and evidence lacking we are at least trying to have a reasonable conversation.

Frankly, I don't consider many of our forum apologists particularly christian.  I'd give them their own schismatic designations.  We've got GC-ists, RR-ists, Steve-ists, and Neo-ists, Drich-ists etc....round hur.

Maybe, just maybe, you're looking for a degree of doctrinal purity that isn't realistic or important.

---

They each have their own favorite soda pop, too.

I wonder what is the one true biblical soda pop anyway?

Moxie...because small is the gate and narrow the road :-)

Coke is the premier soda pop like the Roman Catholics.
Pepsi is for all the Protestants, except Southern Baptists. They drink RC. (funny because you would think Catholics would drink RC, right?)
Dr. Pepper and Fresca are like Mormons and Jehovah witnesses, definite heretics.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's the thing..you -do- come at us like that, but being who you are you don't realize that to an outsider there's very little disparity between any of you. 

Doctinal purity, lol..hardly, my preferred christians are the types that acknowledge that doctrinal purity is difficult to maintain.

[Minimalist]

It remains absurd for them to worry about extraordinary evidence when they do not have any evidence at all.  The Tortoise and the Hare is one of Aesop's fables.  Like fucking jesus it exists in only one place and there is no fucking evidence for it any where aside from that one book.

It's a fairy tale....just like their fucking godboy.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ofc you have Neo, you've seen many..and you give it away when you add the qualifier "serious".  All that really means, is that you disagree, or think that the rebuttal was offered in a mocking style not respectful of the subject matter you consider to be super serious.........but you would, wouldn't you?

Okay...fine. I'll grant that there are maybe 3 or 4 AF members that can raise a serious objection, know what they are talking about, and have the good sense to realize that philosophical positions never rise to a level of certainty that qualifies as "debunked". The rest just say they've been debunked but haven't a clue about what the arguments even mean.

[Whateverist]

Here's the thing..you -do- come at us like that, but being who you are you don't realize that to an outsider there's very little disparity between any of you. 

Doctinal purity, lol..hardly, my preferred christians are the types that acknowledge that doctrinal purity is difficult to maintain.

Maybe they suspect that the keepers of the purity are too flawed to rely on?

[The Grand Nudger]

A suspicion that easily rises to the level of certain knowledge, lol.

[Whateverist]

A suspicion that easily rises to the level of certain knowledge, lol.

Well for you or I of course, but keep in mind the cognitive dissonance.  That's got to be a real bitch.