Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[RoadRunner79]

---

Just because there is bad thinking, doesn't mean that it is false.  It means it is a bad reason for the belief.  I agree, there are a number of things that we are more knowledgeable about. And we have better access than ever before.  However the key to most fallacies, is they ignore the reasons and evidence, and instead focus on something of no or little consequence.  It doesn't follow, that because it is old, or because you believe the person is more primitive that they are incorrect and the new or more advanced is right. It is about the reasons for the claim. When the claim is made doesn't matter. Similar, would be some people, who think that older necessarily means better. We do live in a cost pinching, throw away society you know.  

I would say that because it's old, or they where more primitive is more of an explanation, not a reason for the conclusion.

---

The purpose of a fallacy is to separate ingenuous opinion from logical truth.

I agree that people become lost in the fallacy battle, but stating that there is no evidence for god's existence is logical truth.

The claim, no matter what it is, has to be followed up with the proper evidence in order for it to transfer from claim to fact. Religious claims remain claims because there is no proper evidence to classify them as factual.

Yes a fallacy is a generally agreed upon lists of bad thinking. And perhaps sometimes can be used to often as shorthand. Even in some of the informal fallacies; something may technically fit the definition, but is not irrational thinking automatically. Fallacies can be mis-applied as well. And I just gave a quick response to Brian (who I usually just ignore), because he doesn't discuss anything in context anyway. I just see the "because it's old" or "we are more advanced" used too often as if it's a valid reason by itself (sometimes with a racist comment which doesn't add anything except of reflection of the commenters character)

I would disagree, that there is no evidence. And I think people need to assess this claim. I have had discussions about evidence itself which have been interesting. 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. 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). In a court room, both the defense and the prosecution present their evidence for their side. It doesn't mean that the contradictory conclusions are both true. You can acknowledge evidence for the other side, and still not believe But the evidence needs to be weighed and evaluated properly. My goal here isn't really to present the evidence, many do that already, and many already know it. I'm more concerned with the reasons and principles, in which the evidence is dismissed. This is a claim that can be examined. And to also learn about how atheist think (which is why I push to discuss and reason through things). I set my goals low. And why I may sometimes fail to my natural inclinations, and get a little short with someone, who doesn't want to discuss the topic at hand, but shift the burden to me, and demand that every discussion can default to me and their assumptions about what I am "really" talking about.
.

---

Just because there is bad thinking, doesn't mean that it is false.  It means it is a bad reason for the belief.  I agree, there are a number of things that we are more knowledgeable about. And we have better access than ever before.  However the key to most fallacies, is they ignore the reasons and evidence, and instead focus on something of no or little consequence.  It doesn't follow, that because it is old, or because you believe the person is more primitive that they are incorrect and the new or more advanced is right. It is about the reasons for the claim. When the claim is made doesn't matter. Similar, would be some people, who think that older necessarily means better. We do live in a cost pinching, throw away society you know.  

I would say that because it's old, or they where more primitive is more of an explanation, not a reason for the conclusion.

It seems to me that both science and religion are as old as man in some form.  Surely, humans 10,000 years ago were capable of observing and experimenting on their environment.

The problem with religion is that it's very poor at answering questions of survival: how to cure diseases, for example.  For sure, there are plenty of individual remedies that do work: ancient herbal uses we've forgotten about, etc.

But it is the particular way science is done now, and religion is done now, that makes science much > religion.  If Christians, for example, felt that all science was essentially a religious pursuit, and they saw the vigorous study of the environment as a kind of extended prayer, then it wouldn't be the mockable tooth-fairy BS that it is today, at least in the US.

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!