Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Amarok]

Sensus divinitatis... lmfao.

Yup Wooters favorite piece of apologist mythology . Just rewrite reasoning and claim you win.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

I see three (alleged) adults getting pissy amused because they can't seem to convince other adults belligerent children that fairies the consensus of scholars are legit.  

Fixed that for you.

Neo-Scholastic, out of curiosity and with all due respect, regardless of all the labels and thought processes that people put into interpreting reality, is it possible  that no one is right? In other words, is it possible that nobody is correct about the truth and that people are all deluded in their own unique ways? Is the human mind evolved enough to separate delusion from objective experience?

[Ravenshire]

Steve-o, you've managed to spin out a 43-page (and counting) thread based on semantics and obfuscation but I'll bet you've never even considered examining your own confirmation bias in accepting the absolute worst type of testimonial evidence as sound. Evey time you (practically screaming at this point) claim that the gospels were first-had accounts, you show it. By trotting out a semantics argument in hopes of obfuscating your real arguments, you show it. By repeatedly asserting that the buy-bull is somehow evidence of a claim and not the claim itself (again, practically screaming it at this point), you show it. It's why so many christers loath science and so many who understand science loath religion. Because the method does it's best to strip confirmation bias. You do nothing, and it's glaringly obvious to anyone reading this thread who doesn't hold the same bias.

Yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This does not mean the evidence itself has to be extraordinary, but that there has to be an extraordinary amount of it. If you can't understand that, maybe you should read some of the works of the people who have been quoted (correctly or not) saying that, starting with Sagan. You've attacked every argument here with ferocity, but also with a profound lack of understanding. Not only of what the arguments are, but what educated scholars say about your own holy book. I'd seriously recommend some reading of textual criticisms of said holy book. Bart Ehrman is a great place to start, especially since he backs the idea of a historical jeebus.

Now, having said all that, I'm sure you'll ignore it all because you had to get all offended for your gawd, because I called it gawd, or jeebus, or some such (no, I don't have to respect your gawd just because you think it's worthy). If you're so thin skinned that you have to get upset that someone called your all-powerful, creator of the universe, sky-daddy a name, maybe an atheist forum isn't the best place for you.

[Minimalist]

Awe all our fundies went away .The entertainment of watching them fail history, logic, Reason , And make unsupported error ridden assertions . Based on apologist excuse making . Was just getting fun. But then again we have already countered everything so...

They are off licking their wounded balls.

[Amarok]

I see three (alleged) adults getting pissy amused  Pissy because they can't seem to convince other adults belligerent children   Rational adults that fairies the  unreasonable and evidence free consensus of scholars (which is not even true)because appealing to said consensus and fairies  are legit.

(because appealing to consensus is not an argument if the consensus is wrong. Good thing this claim is BS )
Or as carrier points out when apologist trot out this tired dismissal tactic

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553


There fixed it

[Astonished]

I see three (alleged) mentally disadvantaged adults getting pissy amused pissy because they can't seem to convince other adults belligerent children rational adults that fairies the transparently fabricated, unreasonable and evidence-free consensus of scholars frauds and charlatans because appealing to said consensus and fairies  are legit. are anything but just that.

Made it even better. Revision is fun!

[Amarok]

frauds and charlatans are strong words even carrier does not go that far. Uniformed biased to there own crowd maybe but fraud is a bit strong. But yes the evidence is not in there favour and simply blindly appealing to them does not help .  And yes revision is fun .

Craig Evan tried to use the argument from consensus in his debate with Carrier  . It didn't go well for him.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10935#rebuttals

[Astonished]

frauds and charlatans are strong words even carrier does not go that far. Uniformed biased to there own crowd maybe but fraud is a bit strong. But yes the evidence is not in there favour and simply blindly appealing to them does not help .  And yes revision is fun .

As AronRa points out, if you're proclaiming as true that which is not evidently true or which you cannot demonstrate is true, that is a lie, and depending on what you're lying about, that's fraud. The fact that ID was defeated spectacularly in court because those who were defending it were frauds is just a microcosm of the entire enterprise. Try pulling any of that other shit in an actual court, and they'll be convicted of fraud and rightly labeled as charlatans.

[Amarok]

frauds and charlatans are strong words even carrier does not go that far. Uniformed biased to there own crowd maybe but fraud is a bit strong. But yes the evidence is not in there favour and simply blindly appealing to them does not help .  And yes revision is fun .

As AronRa points out, if you're proclaiming as true that which is not evidently true or which you cannot demonstrate is true, that is a lie, and depending on what you're lying about, that's fraud. The fact that ID was defeated spectacularly in court because those who were defending it were frauds is just a microcosm of the entire enterprise. Try pulling any of that other shit in an actual court, and they'll be convicted of fraud and rightly labeled as charlatans.

You have a point

[Astonished]

As AronRa points out, if you're proclaiming as true that which is not evidently true or which you cannot demonstrate is true, that is a lie, and depending on what you're lying about, that's fraud. The fact that ID was defeated spectacularly in court because those who were defending it were frauds is just a microcosm of the entire enterprise. Try pulling any of that other shit in an actual court, and they'll be convicted of fraud and rightly labeled as charlatans.

You have a point

Exactly. Even if you want to say something like, "I strongly believe because..." or "I have good evidence that suggests...", you still need to ultimately be honest and answer "I don't know (yet)", or you're fucking lying.