Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
July 26, 2017 at 5:06 pm
Quote:that almost all scholars believe are 99% they way the were written.
Now you have crossed the line into just being a fucking liar.
What scholars know is that your bullshit has been heavily edited to suit the powers that be. Put down your fucking bible and learn some real history via textual criticism.
Or...continue to be a fucking fool. Makes no difference to me. I've written you off long ago.
RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
July 26, 2017 at 5:07 pm
(July 26, 2017 at 5:01 pm)JackRussell Wrote: In Roman Britain, and across the Roman world, we have many surviving 'defixio', curse documents.
Did they come true? How could you or I know that?
Verifying ancient people as real. Well , I don't believe in absolute certainty. A coin helps and a miracle doesn't.
Even if they could be verified, who the fuck cares who they were or what they did or said? That only matters to the religious because...magic. If Socrates was the genuine author of his philosophy and method or if it was a conjoined pair of twins where one was Alaskan native and one was a hulking Andre the Giant style European, doesn't matter worth a platypus fart. It's the lessons we learn that are what's important (whether it's to learn from their fuck-ups or if they genuinely had something profound to say).
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
July 26, 2017 at 5:10 pm
(July 26, 2017 at 2:46 pm)SteveII Wrote:
Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
It seems that the word 'extraordinary' is highly subjective based on a person's knowledge or experience. As an extreme example, wouldn't everything be extraordinary to someone who knew nothing? So, what makes a claim extraordinary? Uncommon or rare things happen every day. What is the threshold from crossing from ordinary to extraordinary that triggers this supposed need for a special class of evidence? And what constitutes this special class of extraordinary evidence? Is is a quantity thing or a quality thing?
While we could apply this discussion to a wide variety of claims, my interest in the question is does it apply to supernatural/NT claims and if so, how?
For the purpose of this discussion, I define a miracle as a supernatural causation of a physical event, happening in time to physical objects. It is not a suspension of the laws of nature--rather inserting a cause from outside nature.
First point. Of course someone being supernaturally healed or rising from the dead is an improbable claim. However, the improbability of this event could be counter-balanced by examining the evidence and simply asking the question: what is the probability of this evidence being present had a miracle not occurred? As this probability number goes down, the probability of the event having a supernatural cause goes up. Notice that there is no requirement that the evidence be 'extraordinary'.
Another point is that if the atheist equates supernatural with extraordinary claims (citing a lack of evidence), this implies that ordinary claims are ones that have good evidence to support it. To follow that line of thinking through, what is the good evidence for atheism? In fact, since there is zero evidence for atheism, the presence of the NT evidence and the fact that most people in the world intuitively believes in the supernatural, isn't the atheist making the extraordinary claim? If you go with the BS that atheists make no claims, then I would make the more modest point that atheist's 'extraordinary' assessment of NT claims are unfounded.
I think it is a fancy way of promoting selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticsim. As you pointed out, what is an extraordinary claim; or for that matter, what is extraordinary evidence? It is often just a way to move the goalpost, for that which goes against ones worldview. To test this, try using this claim when the shoe is on the other foot, and see what your results are.
I have started discussions before; I don't think that this philosophy is valid (although I can see where it could be useful to dismiss things lazily). I think it is inconsistent and subjective. You may get an example, and be asked, which you would be more likely to believe and they will give and analogy, with one thing you will likely accept, and one you likely won't. However from an epistemology sense they are equal. You don't have more reason to believe one over the other. My view is that you are more willing to relieve the epistemic burden for one over the other. Not that one requires more as a way of knowing. That is; you are willing to make more assumptions or believe more on faith, in one instance over the other.
I have heard some valid points, when I am able to get people to discuss this and I'm willing to concede a few things. However, I don't think it gets you to the way that the extraordinary claims sound bite is often used.
Anyway, based on my experience, I wish you luck in your efforts.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
July 26, 2017 at 5:12 pm (This post was last modified: July 26, 2017 at 5:12 pm by Astonished.)
(July 26, 2017 at 5:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(July 26, 2017 at 2:46 pm)SteveII Wrote:
Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
It seems that the word 'extraordinary' is highly subjective based on a person's knowledge or experience. As an extreme example, wouldn't everything be extraordinary to someone who knew nothing? So, what makes a claim extraordinary? Uncommon or rare things happen every day. What is the threshold from crossing from ordinary to extraordinary that triggers this supposed need for a special class of evidence? And what constitutes this special class of extraordinary evidence? Is is a quantity thing or a quality thing?
While we could apply this discussion to a wide variety of claims, my interest in the question is does it apply to supernatural/NT claims and if so, how?
For the purpose of this discussion, I define a miracle as a supernatural causation of a physical event, happening in time to physical objects. It is not a suspension of the laws of nature--rather inserting a cause from outside nature.
First point. Of course someone being supernaturally healed or rising from the dead is an improbable claim. However, the improbability of this event could be counter-balanced by examining the evidence and simply asking the question: what is the probability of this evidence being present had a miracle not occurred? As this probability number goes down, the probability of the event having a supernatural cause goes up. Notice that there is no requirement that the evidence be 'extraordinary'.
Another point is that if the atheist equates supernatural with extraordinary claims (citing a lack of evidence), this implies that ordinary claims are ones that have good evidence to support it. To follow that line of thinking through, what is the good evidence for atheism? In fact, since there is zero evidence for atheism, the presence of the NT evidence and the fact that most people in the world intuitively believes in the supernatural, isn't the atheist making the extraordinary claim? If you go with the BS that atheists make no claims, then I would make the more modest point that atheist's 'extraordinary' assessment of NT claims are unfounded.
I think it is a fancy way of promoting selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticsim. As you pointed out, what is an extraordinary claim; or for that matter, what is extraordinary evidence? It is often just a way to move the goalpost, for that which goes against ones worldview. To test this, try using this claim when the shoe is on the other foot, and see what your results are.
I have started discussions before; I don't think that this philosophy is valid (although I can see where it could be useful to dismiss things lazily). I think it is inconsistent and subjective. You may get an example, and be asked, which you would be more likely to believe and they will give and analogy, with one thing you will likely accept, and one you likely won't. However from an epistemology sense they are equal. You don't have more reason to believe one over the other. My view is that you are more willing to relieve the epistemic burden for one over the other. Not that one requires more as a way of knowing. That is; you are willing to make more assumptions or believe more on faith, in one instance over the other.
I have heard some valid points, when I am able to get people to discuss this and I'm willing to concede a few things. However, I don't think it gets you to the way that the extraordinary claims sound bite is often used.
Anyway, based on my experience, I wish you luck in your efforts.
What the fuck is up with you? Do you have a split personality or something? That is literally the polar opposite of your point of view in every other thread I've seen you in.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
July 26, 2017 at 5:16 pm
(July 26, 2017 at 5:12 pm)Astonished Wrote:
(July 26, 2017 at 5:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think it is a fancy way of promoting selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticsim. As you pointed out, what is an extraordinary claim; or for that matter, what is extraordinary evidence? It is often just a way to move the goalpost, for that which goes against ones worldview. To test this, try using this claim when the shoe is on the other foot, and see what your results are.
I have started discussions before; I don't think that this philosophy is valid (although I can see where it could be useful to dismiss things lazily). I think it is inconsistent and subjective. You may get an example, and be asked, which you would be more likely to believe and they will give and analogy, with one thing you will likely accept, and one you likely won't. However from an epistemology sense they are equal. You don't have more reason to believe one over the other. My view is that you are more willing to relieve the epistemic burden for one over the other. Not that one requires more as a way of knowing. That is; you are willing to make more assumptions or believe more on faith, in one instance over the other.
I have heard some valid points, when I am able to get people to discuss this and I'm willing to concede a few things. However, I don't think it gets you to the way that the extraordinary claims sound bite is often used.
Anyway, based on my experience, I wish you luck in your efforts.
What the fuck is up with you? Do you have a split personality or something? That is literally the polar opposite of your point of view in every other thread I've seen you in.
You'll need to be more specific, if I am to respond (because I really don't know what you are talking about). Perhaps I can clarify something, or it could be a blind spot, that I need to examine.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
July 26, 2017 at 5:16 pm
(July 26, 2017 at 4:25 pm)SteveII Wrote:
(July 26, 2017 at 4:20 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: The ones that leave geological or archaeological evidence. Pompeii is a great example.
So you just admitted that a personal/interpersonal series of events cannot be verified--like the ones discussed at length in the gospels. Interesting. So, why do you demand that they be verified when you admit they cannot be?
I believe the Gospels to be fiction. Fairy tales based upon older fairy tales. Just because something is written down doesn't mean it's true. Otherwise I'd go teach at Hogwarts.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
July 26, 2017 at 5:19 pm
(July 26, 2017 at 5:12 pm)Astonished Wrote:
(July 26, 2017 at 5:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think it is a fancy way of promoting selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticsim. As you pointed out, what is an extraordinary claim; or for that matter, what is extraordinary evidence? It is often just a way to move the goalpost, for that which goes against ones worldview. To test this, try using this claim when the shoe is on the other foot, and see what your results are.
I have started discussions before; I don't think that this philosophy is valid (although I can see where it could be useful to dismiss things lazily). I think it is inconsistent and subjective. You may get an example, and be asked, which you would be more likely to believe and they will give and analogy, with one thing you will likely accept, and one you likely won't. However from an epistemology sense they are equal. You don't have more reason to believe one over the other. My view is that you are more willing to relieve the epistemic burden for one over the other. Not that one requires more as a way of knowing. That is; you are willing to make more assumptions or believe more on faith, in one instance over the other.
I have heard some valid points, when I am able to get people to discuss this and I'm willing to concede a few things. However, I don't think it gets you to the way that the extraordinary claims sound bite is often used.
Anyway, based on my experience, I wish you luck in your efforts.
What the fuck is up with you? Do you have a split personality or something? That is literally the polar opposite of your point of view in every other thread I've seen you in.
Theists contradict themselves and move the goal posts? Ok, why am I the last to get the memo?
RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
July 26, 2017 at 5:21 pm
(July 26, 2017 at 4:26 pm)Brian37 Wrote:
(July 26, 2017 at 4:20 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: The ones that leave geological or archaeological evidence. Pompeii is a great example.
I wouldn't put it like that. Archaeology DOES prove the existence of religious claims, but only a history of those claims being handed down. Archaeology does not however make truth statements about claims of magic and super powers. It merely reports what it finds, including religious claims.
Popeii's population was full of polytheists at the time of the 79CE eruption, but that would not make their gods real. It merely means we have records of what they believed a the time.
Great point, Brian! Not even unearthed religious items prove that there actually was a deity or a miracle. Hail Athena!
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
RE: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
July 26, 2017 at 5:21 pm
(July 26, 2017 at 5:16 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(July 26, 2017 at 5:12 pm)Astonished Wrote: What the fuck is up with you? Do you have a split personality or something? That is literally the polar opposite of your point of view in every other thread I've seen you in.
You'll need to be more specific, if I am to respond (because I really don't know what you are talking about). Perhaps I can clarify something, or it could be a blind spot, that I need to examine.
I wouldn't go using the words "blind spot" considering the age of the book of mythology you defend.
Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
