Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Succubus]

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.

And remember, the 'scholars' who make these claims are almost invariably theologians and priests. You know, people whose livelihood’s depend on bullshitting.

[drfuzzy]

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?

Why do you persist in making assertions that by your own admission cannot be verified?  You revere a set of stories that you admit cannot be verified.  Fine - enjoy them as you will.  Just don't try to insist that I come around to your point of view and base my life on a book I consider to be less valid than a fun escape read about sparkly vampires.

---

[Succubus]

...To test this, try using this claim when the shoe is on the other foot, and see what your results are...

You forgot to add a 'for instance...'

[Astonished]

...To test this, try using this claim when the shoe is on the other foot, and see what your results are...  

You forgot to add a 'for instance...'

Ah, fuck that guy. I'm convinced he's just fucking with us at this point.

[Foxaèr]

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

Extraordinary claims require evidence period.

The truth is that the bible is as evidential for the existence of god as "Twas the night before Christmas" is evidential for the existence of Santa Clause.

If any theist had any real evidence for the existence of god, religious faith would not be needed. The fact that theists rely solely on religious faith to make a positive claim regarding god's existence points to the factual truth that there simply is no evidence for god's existence.

You seem to be illogically hung up on the fact that the claim "god does not exist" is an extraordinary claim. It is not an extraordinary claim any more than "Santa Clause does not exist" is an extraordinary claim.

The extraordinary claim is that which falsely posits god (or Santa Clause) as real, for from a logical perspective there is nothing in existence to present god (or Santa Clause) as having any real existence outside of a religious (Christmas) fairy tale.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Actually, claiming that something is false because it is old, or better because it is new; is a fallacy.

[brewer]

My improbable claim is that an apparent super natural being, (named super man oddly enough) exists and can fly. People (not me) claim to have seen it and have written books about it. What is the probability of this evidence being present had this flight not occurred?

The probability is low which means that a supernatural event cause for the claim is high.  Notice that there is no requirement that the evidence be extraordinary. Do you believe it without additional evidence?

Your analogy (and everyone else's about Santa or unicorns or whatever) is lacking for the sole reason you made it up. There is no evidence to weigh or consider alternative explanations. It is totally irrelevant and makes no point.

It's not an analogy but a claim, is completely relevant and fits your scenario. You don't like it simply because you want justifiable belief in your scenario and not the one I put forward based on the same premise.

What is this lacking that yours has? I did not make it up, this story was around before I was born. What sole reason other than your position in wrong?

[shadow]

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'.

Hi Steve. My understanding of what you are saying is, if you have highly concrete evidence something extraordinary as already occurred, you should need less evidence for proving its mechanism because you already know it is possible. Please correct me if my understanding of your argument is incorrect.

In response, a few questions I think you should consider:
1) Do we have highly concrete evidence of miracles occurring?
2) When choosing between many different explanations for an event, how do we distinguish between them to find the most valid one? For example, let's assume something seemingly miraculous did occur. How do we know which deity was responsible for it? How do we know that any of the ancient gods people have believed in throughout time are responsible for it at all as opposed to an unknown god? How do we a god did it at all? The whole purpose of evidence is to distinguish between competing theories. When it comes to explaining natural events, science has blown religion out of the water as humanity has learned more about the world when it comes to presenting compelling theories about natural mechanisms. This is why science offers a favourable explanation to religion.

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.

You say 'zero evidence for atheism'. Atheism is just the lack of a belief. This is akin to, when investigating a murder, saying that their is zero evidence that a random bystander had nothing to do with the crime. It is a true statement, but how would one attempt to gather evidence for a non-happening? Zero evidence is the natural state for claiming that something didn't happen.

[Brian37]

I wouldn't go using the words "blind spot" considering the age of the book of mythology you defend.

Actually, claiming that something is false because it is old, or better because it is new; is a fallacy.

Fine, nail yourself to a cross, heck do that to yourself along with a good sample rate, say 2,000 3,000 people. Make sure they are all dead, no brain or organ or cellular motion, make sure all the blood is out of their body, don't lend them any aid, and see if they come back to life after even 24 hours. Oh yea, gotta also make sure rigor mortis sets in too.

Because if your counter arguments to the stages of death are "poof", sorry, doesn't wash. 

And another thing. I've watched my mother die. I have seen her cold and stiff at the funeral home. I would love to have her still alive. But unlike you I don't fool myself into believing bullshit that is not scientifically possible. I don't concoct poof logic because of that desire to justify a delusion.

And NO, none of what you just read is being angry at a fictional being that does not exist. But yea, your logic pisses me off mainly because there is no evidence. But secondly because it allows you to fake compassion when really all it is is narcissism as if people outside your religion have no capability of having the same emotions and pain.

Nobody survives the death myth as implied in the bible. The torture certainly was real, and the cross itself also was, but in real life, if you were nailed to one and died on one, you stayed dead. But that method of execution WAS NOT exclusively to torture Christians, but anyone who challenged the Roman Empire. They did it to Greeks and Jews and other rival polytheists they conquered.

[chimp3]

To the pragmatist "extraordinary claim" does not mean "simply amazing" or "awesome". The phrase , as used in the thread title, refers to the concept expressed as Occam's Razor. We have no evidence that people can levitate and disappear above the clouds. We have no knowledge of any physical process that makes such an event possible. A claim that states "Person A" physically rose into the sky (without a JATO) is extraordinary. That claim demands not only evidence the event occurred but also an extraordinary overturning of the known laws of physics and biology. The OP is twisting the meaning of "extraordinary" the way that I.D.iots twist the word "theory".