Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The book is the claim, not the evidence.

(throws bullshit flag) That's a dumb meaningless meme. You could say that about any document ever produced, including the Declaration of Independence or Napoleon's letters to Josephine.

And we have independent sources that verify the DoI as being written when and where it is claimed. 

And nobody's claiming Benjamin Franklin was god, for that matter.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The book is the claim, not the evidence.

(throws bullshit flag) That's a dumb meaningless meme. You could say that about any document ever produced, including the Declaration of Independence or Napoleon's letters to Josephine.

Nonsense. Firstly, the DoI acknowledges its self-reference ("we hold these truths to be self-evident" ring a bell, anyone?). It doesn't claim to be anything more than a claim (to wit, of grievances against an English king). Secondly, personal letters are expressions of emotion, typically, not statements of fact, which is what most Christians purport the Bible to be. And if they do contain claims of factuality, it is entirely appropriate for the respondent to ask, "Where's your source?". Thirdly, there are literally hundreds of thousands of books which footnote, you know, sources. Those sources are actually outside points of reference which support any particular claims laid in said book. Footnotes are notable by their absence in your holy book.

The Bible claims that Yahweh created the Universe, that Jesus is both himself and his son, and so on. Pointing to that book in order to support that book's claims is the epitome of circularity.

Try moar.

[KevinM1]

Documents that purport to being factual accounts require some form of independent corroboration in order to verify their claims.

The gospels don't meet this criteria because they're part of the claim itself.

The various correspondence by church officials don't meet the criteria because their authors have a vested interest in spreading the religion... they can hardly be considered independent.

3rd party mentions (like Tacitus) merely state that certain people/events happened in a historical sense, but that doesn't lend support to the supernatural portion of the assertion.

It's amazing how this trips theists up. Demonstrating that an actual person named Jesus existed, and that he was a local religious leader who created a literal cult of personality, is a far different task than also proving he was magic. And, much to Steve's dismay, a litany of things pointing to mundane Jesus doesn't add weight to magic Jesus. That's not how logic works.

[Minimalist]

Evidence of a mundane jesus would be a good place to start.  Sadly, that does not exist, either.

[vorlon13]

Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ??

Well, you're just going to have to trust me on this, but Jesus is HOMOSEXUAL !!!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Documents that purport to being factual accounts require some form of independent corroboration in order to verify their claims.

You mean like other documents? Then you're going to tell me those other documents are claims too that require more documents to support their claims and so on into infinity. That's why the meme is bullshit. We have 4 gospels writing about the same people, places and events. We have several letters discussing those people, places and events. We have historian writing about the central figure mentioned in the 4 gospels and the several letters. We have archaeological evidence for some of those people, like Pilate, and places, like the pool of Bethesda. etc. etc.

[Amarok]

Lol more evidence Neo has no clue what he is talking about

[Neo-Scholastic]

(throws bullshit flag) That's a dumb meaningless meme. You could say that about any document ever produced, including the Declaration of Independence or Napoleon's letters to Josephine.

Nonsense. Firstly, the DoI acknowledges its self-reference ...It doesn't claim to be anything more than a claim (to wit, of grievances against an English king).

The DoI is evidence that there was a Continental Congress. It is evidence that John Hancock and company were members of that Continental Congress. It is evidence that the Revolutionary war was a real historical event.

Don’t be dim. Are you really prepared to say that no written record about people, places or events, counts as evidence in favor of the historicity of those events? You’re playing a semantic shell game. There isn’t a single historical document that you couldn’t dismiss simply by calling it a claim. Next you're going to tell me that the battle of Gettysburg never happened because the Gettysburg address is just the claim that there was a battle, not evidence for one.

You seriously want to believe that Thucydides’ “History of the Peloponnesian War” is just a claim and that it doesn’t as count as evidence in favor of said war? How about Plutarch’s “Lives”? Isn’t that evidence in favor of the claim that Cato the Elder was a real person? Of course it is.

---

Lol more evidence Neo has no clue what he is talking about

So you claim.

[Amarok]

Uh huh keep telling yourself that Neo

[Minimalist]

We have 4 gospels writing about the same people, places and events.

Liar.  You have 1 gospel, with two copycats and a re-write.  There is only one story.  What is now known as "mark."