Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Minimalist]

Because there are no ties to that, either.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because that religion ceased to be marketed as a useful commodity, finally, in the early twentieth century with the dissipation of the OTO and Golden Dawn.

You're welcome.

(some neo pagans are sympathetic, but in an entirely modern and western way)

[pocaracas]

3. So what? How does that impact the reasoning? If your going with atheists don't make claims (even though I think most do--even if through ignorance and to ignore the concept of strong atheism) you are still left with the second part of my conclusion: "the distinction of 'extraordinary' becomes meaningless.

People make claims, sure... Whether they're theists or atheists.
But you were saying that atheism is a claim. That it is a more extraordinary claim than theism, on account of the absence of evidence for it.
I'm saying theism is the claim and atheism is simply the position of not accepting the theism claim... Unlike many other possible a[claim]isms, this one developed a name throughout human history... Because the theism claim has had some success for a long time, most of which mankind was mostly ignorant of the world.
But now we know better, we have many tools at our disposal to probe the world and figure out how it works... Thus far, none of those tools has yielded anything resembling a god - not that they're looking for a god, but for something that is claimed to be so omni, it seems remarkably absent. And this renders the theism claim an extraordinary one .
Like a claim that any work of fiction is indeed real. The force, magic, the TARDIS, zylons, Klingons, etc... The claim that any of these is real is an extraordinary claim and would require some hefty evidence. While the default "I don't believe that claim" requires no evidence at all. You just need to go "nothing in the reality that humans agree upon support that such a claim is true".
And no, cosplayers, people talking about those fictional universes, speaking in languages from those universes, or even providing testimony that they're real is not credible evidence.

[shadow]

We don't demand more than regular evidence and assessment on a philosophical basis: we demand it because we want to draw good conclusions to make good decisions. If someone's claiming something that is within the laws of physics, is supported by empirical evidence and has no profit motive, I don't need as much convincing to believe them as if they are claiming there is an all powerful being controlling my destiny who wants me to give them my money. You really don't understand why? [1]


I don't understand how any of this is evidence. [2]


About 1000 years ago, germ theory was inconceivable. People also believed in witches, that the earth was flat, that the sun moved around the earth. Was the fact that the majority of the population believed in these entirely false assumptions a testament to their validity? Or is a belief in witches the result of fear, misinformation, and a lack of education? It is entirely false to say that because people believe something it is true. If you can prove something it is true. I have no interest in whether a belief is 'compelling to a significant amount of people'. Islam is compelling to 1.8 billion people: do you believe that as well? [3]

1. I'm glad you admit that the criteria is arbitrary. I and 90% of the world have no trouble in believing in the supernatural so do not dismiss evidence simply because it does not conform to a naturalistic worldview. 

2. Then you do not understand the definition of evidence. Don't be one of those people who say this is not evidence--it make you sound foolish. http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/

3. You are conflating belief about how the world worked with how to interpret things they saw happen with their own eyes. Even first century people knew the difference between healed and not healed, alive and dead, water and wine.

1. Why use the word 'admit'? Are you under the impression that I'm, like, the spawn of satan who knows you're right but just doesn't want to say it? I'd suggest, if you want to achieve anything productive, change your conception of my motives. I am trying to understand your argument, not trying to punch you out. I would be thrilled to learn it is valid, but I'm not yet convinced.

Anyways, you're pulling out percentages. I just googled it, and an estimated 32% of people in the world are Christians. Hitler won 44% of the popular vote in Germany in 1933. So, by your argument that the proportion of people sheeping an argument increases its validity, Hitler's views are better than the Christian ideology? If 90% of a school class gets a test question wrong, is their empirically false answer now right by virtue of the number of misinformed students in the class?

2. You don't need to be condescending. I'm saying that nothing you quoted is actually evidence of anything. You just listed different formats for expressing information, not any actual evidence. If you have actual evidence of god, not just a bullet point list of random forms that evidence could be in, please provide.

3. Sorry, have you heard eyewitness testimony from these people? Have you seen the events that you believe in here? Are you really taking the stance that there could not possibly be a false account of something witnessed by goat herders 2000 years ago because humans are just so damn objective?

[Astonished]

All I'm hearing here are double-standards, special pleading, and complete and utter misunderstandings of definitions that would embarrass a fucking elementary schoolkid, from Steve and Beep-Beep. Blow it out your asses, both of you, you know you're both full of shit and just aren't willing to admit it. I'm not even convinced you're just that genuinely stupid anymore.

[Minimalist]

It's all they have, man.

[Astonished]

It's all they have, man.

That clip doesn't make sense...if RR is going fast enough to generate smoke but WEC is fast enough to create fire, shouldn't he have caught RR?

[shadow]

That clip doesn't make sense...if RR is going fast enough to generate smoke but WEC is fast enough to create fire, shouldn't he have caught RR?

He's just catching up to him maybe?

[Astonished]

That clip doesn't make sense...if RR is going fast enough to generate smoke but WEC is fast enough to create fire, shouldn't he have caught RR?

He's just catching up to him maybe?

I demand a physicist examine this poste haste!

[SteveII]

3. So what? How does that impact the reasoning? If your going with atheists don't make claims (even though I think most do--even if through ignorance and to ignore the concept of strong atheism) you are still left with the second part of my conclusion: "the distinction of 'extraordinary' becomes meaningless.

People make claims, sure... Whether they're theists or atheists.
But you were saying that atheism is a claim. That it is a more extraordinary claim than theism, on account of the absence of evidence for it.
I'm saying theism is the claim and atheism is simply the position of not accepting the theism claim... Unlike many other possible a[claim]isms, this one developed a name throughout human history... Because the theism claim has had some success for a long time, most of which mankind was mostly ignorant of the world.
But now we know better, we have many tools at our disposal to probe the world and figure out how it works... Thus far, none of those tools has yielded anything resembling a god - not that they're looking for a god, but for something that is claimed to be so omni, it seems remarkably absent. And this renders the theism claim an extraordinary one .
Like a claim that any work of fiction is indeed real. The force, magic, the TARDIS, zylons, Klingons, etc... The claim that any of these is real is an extraordinary claim and would require some hefty evidence. While the default "I don't believe that claim" requires no evidence at all. You just need to go "nothing in the reality that humans agree upon support that such a claim is true".
And no, cosplayers, people talking about those fictional universes, speaking in languages from those universes, or even providing testimony that they're real is not credible evidence.

If we go with "atheists make no claims" then as to the question of is there a God, we have some evidence that there is and on the other side, we have no evidence there is not (I'll even grant you by definition). My point was and is that if there can only be evidence on one side of the equation, the distinction or need of 'extraordinary evidence' is meaningless. Any evidence is sufficient to increase the probability, because there is no rebuttal evidence to overcome. 

For the same reason, I pointed out that strong atheism actually would be the extraordinary claim because it is doing so with no ordinary evidence.