Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't need evidence for my atheism, because the only claim it makes is about my belief state. I do not say "there is no god." There may be. But I've yet to see any evidence for any god.

I agree, I find it frustrating that Steve thinks he has this though.

If his bullshit was so obvious we would all believe. So he either thinks we are in wilful denial or that we are fibbers. Or, and he won't accept this, he may be wrong.

I think the real answer is that he posits his strawman that all atheists are hard atheists in order to knock down the entire position. I agree that saying "there is no god" is speaking beyond our own knowledge. The most I feel comfortable saying is that I can certainly knock down the Abrahamic god due to internal contradictions; for that particular god, I am indeed a hard atheist. Other gods, such as Thor causing thunder by riding his chariot across the skies, I am comfortable saying, "bullshit", because we've flown above the clouds over a thunderstorm and there ain't no chariots there.

Others, well, I cannot say they don't exist. Of course that can be used either of two ways but the Internet Theist™: they can either say "Aha! So you don't know!" and pigeon the chessboard, or they can say, "But no, not believing is evidence of being closed off to the experience."

Me, I don't give a shit either way. They can believe me when I speak my mind, or they can impute thoughts, but they cannot actually say what I think, so fuck 'em.

This Steve guy is one of those whom I find to be uninteresting for his inability to deal with nuance. And that ain't my problem.

---

[...] testimony that is better than 99% of all historical documents.

lol

I've got a bridge you might be interested in. I swear.

Fish, meet hook.

---

You seem to have a very distorted idea of how long it takes for events to be mythologized. It can happen in a very short time [...]

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

[SteveII]

1. The Message
1.1 The content of the message was not just be nice/aspire to serving one another. The claims of Jesus were specific (equal to God, can forgive sins, is the only path to God, able to give everlasting life, need for atonement, would be the sacrifice, judgment, etc.). Are you saying Jesus never said any of this and that this complex teaching was added later? This was 180 degrees from Judaism.

The claims of Jesus aren't truly known, only what was eventually written down about what he was said to have said. There's no way of discerning his own words from words put in his mouth by followers who wanted the deified version of their teacher to be ascendant. I doubt it was added later, more likely the sayings of Jesus were mixed with those of previous or contemporary teachers very early in the oral tradition.

---

1.2 If so, why? This was a long list of blasphemy that would get you killed by the Jews. When their world came crashing down on them at the crucifixion, what made the disciples say "I know, let's make life more difficult...". What gain/reason could they have anticipated (real or imagined)?

The very story you're trying to defend as accurate in every jot and tittle illustrates that the Jews had no authority to put anyone to death under Roman occupation.

---

1.3 The disciples were simple people from simple walks of life without schooling. Were they capable of making up the complex theology framework that would be different than but dovetail with the OT? Would they be able to quote from and draw parallels to the OT, weave in a few prophesy fulfillments? 

Even the doctor was without schooling? Since the disciples didn't actually write the gospels, there's no reason to drag them into it. They weren't around to make corrections.

---

2. Timing
2.1 There was insufficient time between the events and when people started writing stuff down for just plain myth. People would have had to start lying so the revised version of events were believed to be the facts (message, miracles, resurrection). 

You seem to have a very distorted idea of how long it takes for events to be mythologized. It can happen in a very short time, and it's easy to find documented examples of that sort of thing happening in the last hundred years, including people who walked around healing pretty much anyone who touched them (and who weren't remarkably religious, they were just novel to the locals). It only takes a minute to tell someone a version of events that is inaccurate and the version that spreads by word of mouth is the version that is most dramatic and entertaining.

---

2.2 Since there was one or more documents that preceded the gospels (Q, M, and/or L), they would have had to develop this new decidedly non-jewish religion from scratch fairly early on. Add to those Matthew/Mark/John and you have quite a body of body of claims all in the lifetime of rebuttal witnesses. How come there are no rebuttal witnesses (no miracles, no resurrection, etc.)?
2.3 The activities to get the churches started across the empire by at least 50-55 AD required that there be a critical mass of people to get things going fairly early on. There had to be an established narrative about Jesus' message, claims, miracles, death and resurrection.  In any case, there is again ample time for rebuttal eyewitness testimony in the 20 years leading up to Paul's letters.

Your arguments seem to be based on personal incredulity, for the most part.

3. Luke
3.1 A highly-educated Greek guy, who endeavored to write a chronicle of the events of the first decades or so, represents 27% of the NT. Was he part of the conspiracy when he related all the events of the life of Jesus and the early church history in Acts?

I thought you said the disciples were too unschooled to do sophisticated theology?

 
3.2 If he was deceived, he was deceived by some pretty simple, uneducated people.
3.3 He wrote within the lifetime (and certainly within the collective memory) of possible rebuttal witnesses (he finished before Paul's death before 68AD). 
3.4 Luke mentions other written accounts he was aware of in Luke 1:1.

You so often cite how many scholars agree with you that it didn't occur to me that you would actually think the Gospel of Luke was written by the apostle Luke. How many scholars agree with you on that?

4. Is Paul part of this conspiracy? If so, he had some dedication!! Prison, shipwrecked, prison, death. To what end? If not, it is hard to classify 1 Corinthians 15 as mistaken--especially where he mentioned the eyewitnesses and then went on to discuss if Christ had not been raised from the dead. Was he also mistaken about Christ appearing to him on the road when he was a such a good Christian hunter.

You're the only one proposing a conspiracy. I guess that's easier to argue against than what I actually proposed. Paul joined in on an existing movement and seems to not have known about some of the events of the gospels.

5. Extra Biblical sources back up the gospels and the resurrection as being central to Christianity. 
5.1 Epistle of Barnabas, Epistle of Clement, Shepherd of Hermes, Theophilus, Hippolytus, Origen, Quadratus, Irenaeus, Melito, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Tatian, Caius, Athanasius, and Cyril.

That those beliefs are central to Christianity is not in question. Whether the resurrection and everything else in the gospels actually happened is what is in question.

1. See, I don't have to prove it. All I have to do is accept their testimony--testimony that is better than 99% of all historical documents. Don't accept it if you don't believe them. I have no reason to think they were lying. 

1. You don't have to prove it to yourself, true. What are all your posts on the topic for, then?

1.1 You are explaining a theory that has no reason to believe it other than the supernatural content. This is where the OP comes in. Regular evidence points to Jesus pretty much said what they said he said. 

1.2 Unfortunately they didn't get the memo before they stoned Stephen. 

1.3 Luke was not a disciple. Why weren't the disciples around to review the documents before they were copied and sent out. The actual disciple probably did not sit down with a quill. 

2.3 No. Personal incredulity is not understanding something...therfore no. This is simply inferrence to the best explanation. You have to admit that if these events happened, then the simplest explanation is that it happened as it was claimed. 

3. Luke was not a disciple. Never met Jesus. See Luke 1. He "set out to write an orderly account."

4. No, I am pointing out that if you deny that the events unfolded they way they are laid out, that that's what you are stuck with. You have a timeframe and real characters that would have known the truth interacting and producing results that are nearly certainly true (the first century church and the documents we have are largely the way they were to begin with). Either it is true or it was a conspiracy.

I'm curious what you think Paul did not know that was material to all this.

5. That is the question. 

1...Combat bad reasoning among my atheist friends (for their own good).

[RoadRunner79]

My question, is what do you base this conclusion on (without begging the question)?   I would think that this type of post-facts approach could be used to re-frame any number of things, and while it may be useful in a culture that want's things tailored to what they already believe, I don't think it is objective.

I base this possible conclusion (it's just an example, as was requested, there are many other possible interpretations of the contents of the NT) from my frequent readings of the gospels. Even that conclusion is very tentative, as there's virtually nothing in terms of corroborative evidence of the events in the gospels outside of the gospels except more fanciful gospel texts that the Council of Nicea rejected for inclusion it the Bible, but textual analysis leads me to lean towards there having been a real person behind the legend of Jesus, whose baptism by John and whose crucifixion and circumstances of birth required explaining. For the record, I was a true believer when I first read the gospels, if I had any bias, it was towards it being true; but I noticed inconsistencies and I had been raised to be a literalist, so I did more research, which didn't make it seem any more likely to actually be a true and objective account of events in the first place.

Do you know how to make a post without referring to the motivations you imagine other people have for not posting what you think they should?

Please be specific: How is it begging the question? How is it a 'post-facts' approach?

---

If you are just answering as a possibility, then I think that is fair to the question that was asked.  As I had said I didn't like the question for precisely this reason.   However, I think to get from what is possible to a rational conclusion it needs to be supported by evidence and reason.

As to my reference to begging the question.   This was more of an if statement.   And even if you do beg the question, I don't have a problem, as long as you own up to it, and don't expect me to follow bad reasoning.  It wasn't meant as a prediction or guessing your motives, but rather as a qualifier (I think we would agree, that begging the question is poor logic). 

As to a post-facts approach, I do think I see a little of that in there; although you can correct me if I'm wrong in any of this.   But I would disagree, that you came to that "possibility" (you gave before) from the Gospels.  That is because I too have read the Gospels, and I believe that pretty much everything to make your case, is not in there.  Therefore it came from somewhere else.  I would even go as far as to claim, that what was added, is not based on any historical reasons at all (that I am aware of anyway).  It sounded somewhat familiar to soundbites, avoiding the facts to advance a particular narrative.  If I am understanding, then feel free to correct me.  And from what you said above, I lean a little less in this direction, that you just advanced a possibility, and are really unsure.

A couple of notes for you to consider:
First:  Your main reason mentioned above is inconsistencies and you referenced what I assume is a strict literalness upbringing.  The truth or historicity of the Biblical account does not rest on inerrancy.  In fact, of multiple accounts, it is to be expected that their may be some inconsistencies, but generally tell of the same events.  I haven't heard any great inconsistencies, where I think inerrancy needs to come into question, but that can be a conversation for  another time.  Some of the pointed to inconsistencies are just frivolous claims, which I believe actually detract from ones argument.  Others have some merit, but I think only when viewing it in a highly technical way, that it is not meant.  (As Neo mentioned, the writing style of Plutarch, but more generally, just everyday use of language, that we normally wouldn't question).

Second:  the "fanciful gospel texts" where not rejected at the Council of Nicea.  There where 20 canons of this council, and there is no indication that any of them discussed  which books should be in the bible.  A number of lists where made throughout the years, as to which writings belonged in the class of Scripture.  From well before, to well after, these haven't varied all that much.  There was accepted writings, that virtually no one challenged, disputed writings, and heretical writings.  The accepted writings are largely quoted by the early Church writings.  The disputed writings, consisted largely of the smaller epistles which really don't change much of anything.  Eusebius seemed to place Revelations somewhere between the disputed and accepted category.  And the book of Hebrews was disputed to some extent  as well (to my knowledge, because they where not sure of the Author).

[SteveII]

You repeatedly miss my point. I don't care if you don't find the evidence compelling. I argue against those who are confused about what a claim of "no evidence" means and I discuss things with those who want to discuss the evidence there is. As it pertains to this thread, there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Only evidence.

What is extraordinary evidence?

If I claim I just finished lunch, would you require any further evidence than my say so?
Ah, but wait, would you know that I'm in Western Europe, you could easily reason that I should have just finished dinner, not lunch... so my easily believed claim turns out to be false.
An ordinary claim falls by the wayside with ordinary information.

Now what if I claim I just had dinner? There's no reason to doubt me - it's the right time for it, people in Europe usually have dinner every day, the World Health Organization advises people to have 3 meals a day and one of them is dinner. You yourself have dinner almost every day. Nothing in your experience, nor in the information you have of other people's experiences, is informing you that this claim should be doubted. Hence you are automatically led to believe it.

But what if I add some elements to my claimed dinner?
I just had dinner with my sister. Also no reason to doubt me, huh? Loads of people have sisters and having dinner with them is completely natural. Well... knowing that I have only one brother would put a damper on that, but without that precious piece of information, you'd have every reason to believe me just for saying it.

I just had dinner with Angelina Jolie (damn, I'm getting old for referencing once-hot babes). Would you believe it just based on my say so? Would you accept that claim as true and maybe someday tell the tale of how you know a guy who had dinner with Angelina? Or would you doubt me and require further evidence of that claim? The famous internet adage of "pics or it didn't happen"! Since the advent of Photoshop, even pics can be doubted. Let's say I provided a pic where I and Angelina are seated on opposite sides of a table, all set for a meal. Would you believe that pic at face value? Or would you pour over it in search of evidence of photoshopping?
A photo... that's it. That would probably convince that I, at least, had some meal with Angelina... You'd look for evidence of it being nighttime... and would, if I gave you a digital copy of the photo, look into the EXIF metadata to ascertain that it had been taken today... and maybe get lucky with some GPS data embedded.

A photo and some more info. Info you know I'd have to be very knowledgeable to alter just for the sake of a claim.
That's the extraordinary evidence that would be required for you to believe in my claim that I just had dinner with Angelina Jolie. It's extraordinary because it's not the sort of evidence you'd require for a similar claim (dinner with sister). [1]

And what's the believer's claim? First, there is a god, an entity that sits outside of the Universe and that is capable of creating Universes. My first knee jerk reaction is, of course, How would you know about that?! How did that information reach you? From where did that information come? How was it conveyed?
What sort of evidence do you expect to provide to answer these questions?
For all these knee jerk questions, the believer, at best, can tell me something along the lines of "divine inspiration". That's covering up a plot-hole with another hole. How do you know it's divine inspiration and not imagination? How can you distinguish the two?
Some will go further and point to the absence of knowledge concerning the origin of the Universe and then present their solution, as if it doesn't have to answer those first questions. Many, many, many alternatives can be presented for the origin of the Universe... How to discern the correct one?

Even without these questions answered - questions that pertain only to the information conveyed to you concerning this god - I can go to questions about the god itself. What is it? How does it generate Universes? Does it control the Universes it creates? Does it have companion gods? How can I interact with it?
None of these is satisfactorily answered by any religion.
The last question is asking about evidence... how can I gather my own evidence about this entity, without having to resort to you as a gateway? I don't even want you to give me evidence for that entity, I want to do it myself. Actually, I just want to know how to do it myself. Once that mechanism is understood and considered trustworthy, then I can accept your interactions with said deity. 

Is this taken care of?
Of course not!!
Still, you then go on to claim stuff about a person who lived 2000 years ago. Centuries after my knee jerk reaction failed to be answered. Even without it being answered, tons of people became believers in some form or other of deity.
Having a population of believers, it's not a stretch to make them believe in something further about the same deity they already believe in... and thus evolve the religion.

1. My point is that even a photo of you and Angelina is not extraordinary. It is just a photo--to which we can apply the question--is the unlikely probability of Poc having lunch with Angelina overcome by the probability of seeing a picture of them together if it did not happen? Even the most improbably events can be compared by examining ordinary evidence in this way. 

The rest of your example about the lunch/dinner/sister simply involves whether I take your word for it. I asked for no evidence. If I had a thousand dollar bet on whether you had dinner with your sister, I would ask you for some very ordinary evidence and apply the very same reasoning above. Same situation for you, but my interest has changed.

I'll come back to the rest later. I need some time to think about it.

[Minimalist]

You need a lot more time to think.

[Astonished]

You need a lot more time to think.

Time isn't going to help for shit if no thinking occurs, which is pretty clearly the case here.

[pocaracas]

1. My point is that even a photo of you and Angelina is not extraordinary. It is just a photo--to which we can apply the question--is the unlikely probability of Poc having lunch with Angelina overcome by the probability of seeing a picture of them together if it did not happen? Even the most improbably events can be compared by examining ordinary evidence in this way. 

You forget that you already know who Angeline Jolie is. You've seen her. You know what to expect. You know she's a human being much like us; you know what her face looks like.
A photo of me having dinner with her is extraordinary in the sense of... what are the odds of that dinner happening? What would be required for me to have such a photo?
Of all the photos that I have ever taken with my face on them... not a single one has Angelina. What are the odds that I'd show up with one that does?

I could go even more extraordinary by claiming I had dinner with a fairy called Tinker Bell. Now what would you consider evidence enough of my claim?
This claim is not only that I had dinner with Tink, but also that Tink is a fairy.

The rest of your example about the lunch/dinner/sister simply involves whether I take your word for it. I asked for no evidence. If I had a thousand dollar bet on whether you had dinner with your sister, I would ask you for some very ordinary evidence and apply the very same reasoning above. Same situation for you, but my interest has changed.

The bet is an interesting addition.
Not only because it changes your requirements to believe me, but also... why is there a bet in the first place?

Let's say you have a standing bet on your life (not some measly thousand dollars) that I didn't have dinner with the fairy Tinker Bell. At what sort of evidence would you accept that the terms of the bet have been met and give your life away?
I'm sure a mere photo would not be enough. Even a video could be edited, so you shouldn't take it as sufficient, even if some fairy magic was shown in the video.
What, short of producing Tinker Bell for you to examine directly and without any middlemen, would you consider enough evidence that Tinker Bell is a fairy and I had dinner with her?
(gotta tap that fairy tail!)

I'll come back to the rest later. I need some time to think about it.

Take your time...

[Pat Mustard]

He does not have to worry about extraordinary evidence.  At this point he needs to worry about ANY evidence.  All he can offer is the absurd bleating of ancient believers.

It isn't nearly good enough.

“We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.”

― Robert G. Ingersoll,

The christian (official) attitude to evidence in one sentence "happy are those who have not seen, yet still believe", written in the gospel written last and with the least relation to reality.

[Harry Nevis]

An offshoot of Judaism formed around the beginning of the first century AD/last century BC that spoke to the common Jewish person under Roman domination and caught on. The movement was at least partially based on the teachings of an itinerant rabbi known as Yeshua, who was once a follower of John the Baptist. He was a reputed miracle worker, believed to be accompanied by healings wherever he went. There were reports that this holy teacher was conceived out of wedlock, but such a holy man could not possibly have come from the loins of a fallen woman. Some went so far as to call him the Son of God, immaculately conceived. He ran afoul of the Roman authorities, possibly due to the machinations of the Sanhedrin, and was executed. His most devoted followers, the ones who considered him God's direct offspring, couldn't believe he was really dead, that God would allow his son to be killed like that. Soon, there were reports that he was still alive, that hundreds of people had seen him. A movement based on venerating the risen messiah grew over centuries and survives to the present day, though it now faces stiff competition from another religion originating in the Middle East.

Thank you! Something to discuss!

Bold added. It seems you are going with myth. However, as I think I defend below, there was not sufficient time to be myth. It would have to be a lie on some people's part. 

1. The Message
1.1 The content of the message was not just be nice/aspire to serving one another. The claims of Jesus were specific (equal to God, can forgive sins, is the only path to God, able to give everlasting life, need for atonement, would be the sacrifice, judgment, etc.). Are you saying Jesus never said any of this and that this complex teaching was added later? This was 180 degrees from Judaism. 
1.2 If so, why? This was a long list of blasphemy that would get you killed by the Jews. When their world came crashing down on them at the crucifixion, what made the disciples say "I know, let's make life more difficult...". What gain/reason could they have anticipated (real or imagined)?
1.3 The disciples were simple people from simple walks of life without schooling. Were they capable of making up the complex theology framework that would be different than but dovetail with the OT? Would they be able to quote from and draw parallels to the OT, weave in a few prophesy fulfillments? 

2. Timing
2.1 There was insufficient time between the events and when people started writing stuff down for just plain myth. People would have had to start lying so the revised version of events were believed to be the facts (message, miracles, resurrection). 
2.2 Since there was one or more documents that preceded the gospels (Q, M, and/or L), they would have had to develop this new decidedly non-jewish religion from scratch fairly early on. Add to those Matthew/Mark/John and you have quite a body of body of claims all in the lifetime of rebuttal witnesses. How come there are no rebuttal witnesses (no miracles, no resurrection, etc.)?
2.3 The activities to get the churches started across the empire by at least 50-55 AD required that there be a critical mass of people to get things going fairly early on. There had to be an established narrative about Jesus' message, claims, miracles, death and resurrection.  In any case, there is again ample time for rebuttal eyewitness testimony in the 20 years leading up to Paul's letters.

3. Luke
3.1 A highly-educated Greek guy, who endeavored to write a chronicle of the events of the first decades or so, represents 27% of the NT. Was he part of the conspiracy when he related all the events of the life of Jesus and the early church history in Acts? 
3.2 If he was deceived, he was deceived by some pretty simple, uneducated people.
3.3 He wrote within the lifetime (and certainly within the collective memory) of possible rebuttal witnesses (he finished before Paul's death before 68AD). 
3.4 Luke mentions other written accounts he was aware of in Luke 1:1.

4. Is Paul part of this conspiracy? If so, he had some dedication!! Prison, shipwrecked, prison, death. To what end? If not, it is hard to classify 1 Corinthians 15 as mistaken--especially where he mentioned the eyewitnesses and then went on to discuss if Christ had not been raised from the dead. Was he also mistaken about Christ appearing to him on the road when he was a such a good Christian hunter.

5. Extra Biblical sources back up the gospels and the resurrection as being central to Christianity. 
5.1 Epistle of Barnabas, Epistle of Clement, Shepherd of Hermes, Theophilus, Hippolytus, Origen, Quadratus, Irenaeus, Melito, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Tatian, Caius, Athanasius, and Cyril.

---

1. You claim they were eyewitnesses.  Prove it.
2. It may be evidence, but it advances your claim not one bit.

1. See, I don't have to prove it. All I have to do is accept their testimony--testimony that is better than 99% of all historical documents. Don't accept it if you don't believe them. I have no reason to think they were lying. 
2. That's a stupid statement.

1. So do you accept the veracity of all testimony in historical document, or just the ones you want to believe?
2. How is that stupid?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, we can't "prove" anything unless we dumb down the rules of evidence? Got it.