Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sorry, but there is no amount of textual material that can ever be good evidence for miracle, supernatural, god claims.

Well, there it is, folks. A refreshing piece of honesty. Atheists have no interest in evidence that does not already confirm their opinions.

And of course, you are guilty of special pleading by not allowing for the same kind of evidence for other religions texts, besides your own.

Not true. Already answered here: https://atheistforums.org/thread-50195-p...pid1594726

I can interview living people, some that have written books, that will attest to their alien abduction experiences. Most of them are honestly and sincerely reporting what they believe is the truth. Should I believe them? Do you?

Actually, I do. One report is an anecdote. Multiple reports are a case study. The nature of what they are actually experiencing is still up in the air because it is a strange mixture of physical events and consciousness effects. Hopefully, this reply doesn’t completely derail the thread. I’m just keeping an open mind about a very real phenomena that is largely not understood.

Now, why when you move other supernatural stories 2000 years into the pre-scientific past, written decades or more after the alleged experiences, by non eyewitnesses, do supernatural stories become more credible?

I think it’s a total package of the kind SteveII mentioned earlier. The impeccable logic of Aquainas (Atheists say its debunked but no one on AF seems to know how) revealing a Philosopher’s god, coupled with historical accounts (sorry Simon, archeological finding almost always confirm the biblical accounts) , the promptings of the sensus divinitatis, and the testimony of changed lives all lead us to conclude that our faith is reasonable.

Hey SteveII and Roadrunner79, I'm really enjoying the group effort that reveals the sloppy thinking, uncritical acceptance of fringe NT scholarship, and reliance on stupid memes of atheistic skeptics.

[Minimalist]

In this thread, what we see is nothing less than a three pronged attack upon traditional reasoning, posed in order to make the Christian hypothesis more plausible.

Nothing can save that shit.  Look at Neo.  He thinks "miracles" are real.

[Amarok]

In this thread, what we see is nothing less than a three pronged attack upon traditional reasoning, posed in order to make the Christian hypothesis more plausible.

Nothing can save that shit.  Look at Neo.  He thinks "miracles" are real.

Yup Wooters rants get more unhinged as time goes on it seems. Basic reasoning goes out the window when his belief in magic is challenged . But of course that's me just begging the question lol .

[Minimalist]

When you believe in a magical sky-daddy you are pretty much fucked from the start.

[Amarok]

When you believe in a magical sky-daddy you are pretty much fucked from the start.

Oh no you see it's intuitively possible . Yes that just as stupid as it sounds .

[Minimalist]

Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.

The problem there is that "most scholars" grasp onto 70 because they are smart enough not to put any credence in the absurd concept of "prophecy."  This is designed to make them seem less stupid than the three shits who think that miracles are real in this thread.  The problem is whoever wrote what later came to be called the gospel of mark did not address the situation in 70.  Josephus recounts that the city was a burned out, sacked, pillaged, un populated shithole.  But it was not leveled.  In Mark 13 he has his godboy say that not one stone will remain upon another.  So 70 is the terminus a quo, the earliest possible date for the city being burned out by Titus' assault.  But that condition remained valid for 65 years.  In 135 Emperor Hadrian did, in fact, level the site and build the new city of Aelia Capitolina on the site of the former Jerusalem. 

So "mark" is recording an actual historical event.  Jerusalem was in fact leveled.  But you will wait a long time for any xtian shitwit to admit that their gospel bullshit did not begin ( and remember that 'mark' was first ) until after the Romans suppressed the bar Kokhba revolt.

I suppose they could suggest that mark was too fucking stupid to understand the difference between a burned-out set of ruins and a leveled site suitable for reconstruction.  I can't see them rushing to that, either.

[Amarok]

Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.

The problem there is that "most scholars" grasp onto 70 because they are smart enough not to put any credence in the absurd concept of "prophecy."  This is designed to make them seem less stupid than the three shits who think that miracles are real in this thread.  The problem is whoever wrote what later came to be called the gospel of mark did not address the situation in 70.  Josephus recounts that the city was a burned out, sacked, pillaged, un populated shithole.  But it was not leveled.  In Mark 13 he has his godboy say that not one stone will remain upon another.  So 70 is the terminus a quo, the earliest possible date for the city being burned out by Titus' assault.  But that condition remained valid for 65 years.  In 135 Emperor Hadrian did, in fact, level the site and build the new city of Aelia Capitolina on the site of the former Jerusalem. 

So "mark" is recording an actual historical event.  Jerusalem was in fact leveled.  But you will wait a long time for any xtian shitwit to admit that their gospel bullshit did not begin ( and remember that 'mark' was first ) until after the Romans suppressed the bar Kokhba revolt.

I suppose they could suggest that mark was too fucking stupid to understand the difference between a burned-out set of ruins and a leveled site suitable for reconstruction.  I can't see them rushing to that, either.

But But prophecies and pixie dust . Fuck all that real evidence  they believe in magic .

[The Grand Nudger]

-and there's the rub.  I don't know why they bother with trying to argue evidence or historicity or possibility -or any of that nonsense-.

Once you've invoked magic, it's magic all the way down.  

How do you know this happened?  Magic Book.  But that's not possible.  Magic.  What's the evidence/Why is there no evidence?  Magic.  How can I check this for myself?  Magic.

"Magic magic magic!" - and then they wonder why we treat them like pouty blondes....

[Thumpalumpacus]

1. That isn't even close to being analogous. The tax code does not catalog events that happened--it establishes guidelines for classifying and taxing transactions. 

The tax code is great evidence for the fact that taxes exist.

2. Since the 'Bible' is a collection of 66 books written by 40 some authors over 1500 years, your reasoning goes flying out the window. You see, there is no justification you can use to treat the Bible or the NT as one thing. It wasn't and never will be one thing. Let me re-write your sentence so that it reflects the reality of the situation:

"Can you show me one other contemporaneous record aside from the Bible  Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation which asserts that JC was divine?"

To which I would say that scholars believe there was also Q and possibly M and L. In addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement and more the 12 others that did not make the "canon cut" that were still written in the lifetime of witnesses (before 100AD). 

But Christians treat it as one story. I'm certainly entitled to hold those that do to their own standard.

And if you don't think that all those books tell one story, then aren't you justifying cherry-picking?

3. This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one document. We have plenty of independent documents plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to the gospels being written. 

All those claims are in fact based biblically. Guys like Anselm or Aquinas who used "philosophy" to arrive at their conclusions still had those conclusions informed by their beliefs, as shown by the dismissal of Anselm's arguments before they were even mounted.

4. What else besides eyewitness testimony do we have for any series of historical events? Admit it, your problem isn't with eyewitness, its the content of the claim. And if that's the case, you are the one engaged in question begging/circular reasoning: the NT can't be true because miracles don't happen.

No, my problem is that eyewitness testimony is largely unreliable. The fact that the content of the claim is so absurd only raises the bar for evidence, meaning that eyewitness claims which have suffered many translation, edits, insertions, and forgeries are only that much more unreliable.

If you have eyewitness testimony stating that on Tuesday morning Joe, the baker at the local breadshop, baked seventeen loaves of bread, hey, I'm good with it. Bakers bake bread. We can probably find an inventory sheet showing that, too.

But if you claim that Joe the Baker walked on water, raised the dead, and turned two loaves and five fish into a feast feeding 5,000, I'm going to need a little more than eyewitness testimony two thousand years old that has suffered all the indignities I've listed above. Don't like it? Tough shit. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but you are here trying to convince me. You'll need to set aside your own obviously paltry requirements for evidence and play rational ball.

You cannot do that, and you know it.

[Amarok]

But if you claim that Joe the Baker walked on water, raised the dead, and turned two loaves and five fish into a feast feeding 5,000, I'm going to need a little more than eyewitness testimony two thousand years old that has suffered all the indignities I've listed above. Don't like it? Tough shit. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but you are here trying to convince me. You'll need to set aside your own obviously paltry requirements for evidence and play rational ball.

Agreed evidence proportioned to what is claimed. If theist don't like those standards they can kiss our behinds .

---

3. This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one document. We have plenty of independent documents plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to the gospels being written. 

Bullshit there are no independent sources . And your point about the churches believe is bullshit as well . and none of it is circular reasoning no matter how much you stomp your feet and scream about it.

---

But if you claim that Joe the Baker walked on water, raised the dead, and turned two loaves and five fish into a feast feeding 5,000, I'm going to need a little more than eyewitness testimony two thousand years old that has suffered all the indignities I've listed above. Don't like it? Tough shit. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but you are here trying to convince me. You'll need to set aside your own obviously paltry requirements for evidence and play rational ball.

Agreed evidence proportioned to what is claimed. If theist don't like those standards they can kiss our behinds .

---

3. This 'the Bible is the claim' stuff has got to stop. It makes anyone who brings it up sound stupid. To be circular reasoning, the details of the claim would have to be found only in one place and therefore inseparable from one document. We have plenty of independent documents plus the fact that the churches believed the claim prior to the gospels being written. 

Bullshit there are no independent sources . And your point about the churches believe is bullshit as well . and none of it is circular reasoning no matter how much you stomp your feet and scream about it.

4. What else besides eyewitness testimony do we have for any series of historical events? Admit it, your problem isn't with eyewitness, its the content of the claim. And if that's the case, you are the one engaged in question begging/circular reasoning: the NT can't be true because miracles don't happen.

Nope and you have not shown otherwise. But even if that was the case it's still not circular reasoning . So nice try .