Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[LastPoet]

But your entire premise of all the NT players being fooled has absolutely no evidence except people were fooled before and since. In the absence of any real evidence of deceit it seems that is just an assumption entirely based on the supernatural content of the accounts. If that is so, you are question begging: the events are not evidence of the supernatural because the supernatural does not exist.

In the absence of REAL evidence, deceit is the more likely explanation.  Fixed that for ya.

When you disguise it as an unpassable moving goal post, just bury it under many words devoid of meaning, just to keep that goalpost alive. Then act like you have won the debate when just about everyone is confused.

Playing chess with a pigeon. He strout, shit all over the board and fly away victorious.

[Succubus]

This shite is hard enough to digest as it is, so will you "all" please just fuck off with these block quotes. The bearings are gone in my mouse wheel.

[shadow]

This shite is hard enough to digest as it is, so will you "all" please just fuck off with these block quotes. The bearings are gone in my mouse wheel.

Haha, sorry, this is probably me. The mafia player in me feels obliged to give huge amounts of context for everything.

[pocaracas]

Steve, you're my new favorite theist, on here.... well.... after CL, of course!

I just saw this list on some other reply... and had to say something!

Like I said before, I didn't read the whole thread.... I have no idea what Documentary you mean... [1]
May I suggest a few?
BBC's Bible Buried Secrets
Finkelstein's Bible Unearthed

Before churches got that name, they were temples... temples have existed for far longer than christianity, or even judaism. [2]


As if fiction was something brand new in the world... huh? [3]


You mean, the claims that someone else wrote down? [4]


Seems to fit...
Confucious' message also seems to fit.
Buddah's, too.

Both came before Jesus. Can't be impressed that it showed up at that particular location of the... wait for it... silk road! [5]


Have you ever read Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities? [6]
Minimalist can get you a copy...


First off.... facts is hardly a word I'd use there. [7]
But what do you know of the Essenes? And the likely claim that, had he existed, both John the Baptist and Jesus were Essenes?
And note the similarities between Jesus and the Essene figure of the Teacher of Righteousness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher_of_Righteousness.


We say that there is no evidence of a particular thing - the god and it's extraordinary feats.
The existence of believers is never questioned. All the things you mention were done by believers. People who, even way back then, described themselves as believers. It's like they didn't have first hand knowledge.
People who, apparently, already followed some sort of belief system... how difficult would it be to follow a new charismatic leader, such as Paul? [8]

1. Documents. Such as the 27 in the NT. Some relating events, others expounding on the beliefs that these events precipitated. Most scholars think there were even earlier documents that Paul and the gospel writers had available to them. 

Well... there were even earlier beliefs... much much earlier... even before the god of Abraham showed up. And some even have supporting documents! Shouldn't these earlier tales be much more trustworthy? much closer to the original presentation of god to mankind?

And of course, it is relatively easy to expand pre-existing belief into something larger, or broader. That ignorant people believed the tales is not very amazing... look around - how many people in this world are believing tales from a different religion? Both can't be true.

2. Not what I meant by churches. I mean the Christian groups found in various cities throughout the Roman empire prior to Paul's writings (starting in 50AD). He wrote to many of them and referred to others.

Were they really christian groups? Or Essene groups? Do the Essenes feature in the Bible?
Care to speculate on why the religious group that exists on or near Jerusalem and that is the most similar in philosophy to Christianity does not feature in the Christian holy book?

3. How much of what we have is fiction? Are there actual reasons to think this is so? 

All religions make similar claims... they can't all be right.
At best, only one can be right... all are fiction, except maybe (and this is a big maybe) one.
Is there any reason to think the NT is not fiction? It has some historical figures and locations right?... well, may I counter with Harry Potter who lives in London, UK?... or maybe Sherlock Holmes? Poirot? no?... How about Siper-man in New York? Socrates in Athens?

4. All claims are written down. The gospel editors certainly had access to eyewitnesses, other documents in existence at the time, and well within the period that any number of rebuttal witnesses could have come forward. Further, the editors were not coldly relating some facts they heard to let the reader make up their own mind. They were attesting to the truthfulness of the content of their books. 

In those days, the land was big. Populations didn't intermingle like they do now. You were very unlikely to ever go more than 20 or 30km away from the place where you were born. But some people did travel and spread wonderful tales from yonder. Some would believe the tales and retell them.... some (I hazard to guess, most) would remain believing whatever they had been taught to believe before that.

I do often wonder why were there still jews, after the whole of Jerusalem witnessing the rise of Jesus and other dead and buried people... one would expect the whole population of that city to not only believe, but totally devote to the thing.... however... that didn't happen, did it?
It's like the gospel stories are all disconnected from one another and from the lives of people. That certainly puts a dent in their believability as accounts of actual events... and strengthens the likelihood of it being fiction.

5. Are the words attributed to Jesus part of the fiction/myth theory or the conspiracy theory? How about his claims? He didn't just talk about being nice. He claimed to be God and be the only way by which we can be saved from judgement--a unique formula never seen before on earth. 

I wouldn't be so sure it had never been seen on Earth... do you have evidence of that?

As for what is claimed to have been said... meh... It is very likely that someone did say some of those things, and that some others are fiction. If they were all said by the same person is unknown. The Jesus of the gospels does seem to be a tapestry of different people, doesn't he?

6. No. 

Well, you would learn something about actual history if you read it.
Reality is seldom as simple as it is presented.

7. Name one credible scholar that does not believe in a literal Jesus. In the meantime:

You are aware of the difference between the "historical Jesus" (the one that scholars accept existed) and the Jesus of the gospels, yes?
This historical Jesus may not even have lived in the 1st century, but well before. It seems most of the message already existed some 2 centuries prior.... by none other than the Teacher of Righteousness.

8. I'm not clear on what you are claiming. Paul invented Christianity?

Paul was certainly the greatest influence in shaping present-day Christianity. Read that book.

[Pat Mustard]

Still waiting for an intelligent discussion? Anyone?

Steve, face facts here. Nobody is going to suddenly turn around and suddenly start believing your unevidenced assertions. The fact of the matter is that even if we allowed your premise that you don't need extraordinary evidence to prove an extraordinary claim you still lose because a) you've no evidence for your god assertions, and b) every single thing you attribute to god has a more rational naturalistic hypothesis with, most importantly, evidence behind it.

---

We are not talking about piecing things together from broken pottery. We have dozens of period documents that almost all scholars believe are 99% they way the were written. Nothing to piece together--either it happened or it didn't. Please explain to me what verification is possible in 2017 of any series of specific events in ancient times? Otherwise, it is a case of special pleading.

Well I am a Romano_British archaeologist, and I think pottery is pretty cool, but if old words impress you, look up the Vindolanda tablets, now fully published.

The Bloomsberg tablets are only partially translated and published, but they are even older.

Nought to do about Christianity, but the environmental, dendrochronological and physical evidence is amazing.

Roman Britain is cool and evidenced.

Did you ever meet Baldrick?

[Pat Mustard]

My sentiments to a T.  Rather than argue for the superiority of your epistemic position, the essence of faith would be to admit its frailty and persist nonetheless.  If you have so little faith anyhow, why is it important to convince us?  Convince yourself.

I think that you have a different understanding of faith than I do.  And I don't consider my faith weak, but strong because of the evidence.

You cannot have faith when the evidence is strong. When the evidence is strong what you have is knowledge. Faith only happens when there is no evidence, or in the case of holy ghost believers like yourself, when the evidence says, definitively, no. It works the same as belief as faith is simply belief in a religious context.

[downbeatplumb]

Still waiting for an intelligent discussion? Anyone?

Steve, face facts here. Nobody is going to suddenly turn around and suddenly start believing your unevidenced assertions. The fact of the matter is that even if we allowed your premise that you don't need extraordinary evidence to prove an extraordinary claim you still lose because a) you've no evidence for your god assertions, and b) every single thing you attribute to god has a more rational naturalistic hypothesis with, most importantly, evidence behind it.

---

Well I am a Romano_British archaeologist, and I think pottery is pretty cool, but if old words impress you, look up the Vindolanda tablets, now fully published.

The Bloomsberg tablets are only partially translated and published, but they are even older.

Nought to do about Christianity, but the environmental, dendrochronological and physical evidence is amazing.

Roman Britain is cool and evidenced.

Did you ever meet Baldrick?

Romane eunt domus!!!

[Pat Mustard]

There is one last thing I wish to say in this thread. Why does Steve not put other religions to the same three "tests" he subjects christianity to. Why does he not apply his pseudo-Bayesian equation to Nordic paganism, why does he not use the same "the claims are so out there that those who made them couldn't possibly have lied" to the claims made about Vishnu (whic are equally as fantastic as those made about Jesus), and why does he not accept the weight of numbers argument to accept the truth of the claim for Mohammed's night journey?

Because when it comes to religiouns he doesn't believe he uses the same tools we do to dispassionately evaluate them and logically conclude's they don't represent reality. What when applied to the new testament is hyper-pseudo-sceptical becomes only right and proper when applied to the qu'ran or the bhagavad ghita.

[Brian37]

We have evidence in Scripture of Jesus being crucified on Good Friday.

We also have evidence in Scripture of Jesus being crucified on Maundy Thursday.


So SteveII, do YOU have any extraordinary evidence Jesus was NOT crucified TWICE?????????

Huh, this is new to me, but not surprising. Lots of contradictions of other things too. But I was not aware that there were conflicts on the day of the week. Neat, more reason to call that book bullshit. 

Not that humans can magically survive rigor mortis in any case.

---

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

Steve,

We've discussed this before; do you believe in alien abductions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction

Dawn

I believe in alien abduction. The White House was abducted by The Creature From The Orange Lagoon.

[Aroura]

There is one last thing I wish to say in this thread. Why does Steve not put other religions to the same three "tests" he subjects christianity to. Why does he not apply his pseudo-Bayesian equation to Nordic paganism, why does he not use the same "the claims are so out there that those who made them couldn't possibly have lied" to the claims made about Vishnu (whic are equally as fantastic as those made about Jesus), and why does he not accept the weight of numbers argument to accept the truth of the claim for Mohammed's  night journey?

Because when it comes to religiouns he doesn't believe he uses the same tools we do to dispassionately evaluate them and logically conclude's they don't represent reality. What when applied to the new testament is hyper-pseudo-sceptical becomes only right and proper when applied to the qu'ran or the bhagavad ghita.

This.

I'd honestly like to hear Steve (or anyone liking Steve's posts) to address this.